Allowed

Udaiveer @ Baba Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2019BAIL/6741/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged his detention in a kidnapping and murder case. The court found that, without commenting on merits, it was a fit case for the grant of bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions of attendance in court, non-tampering of evidence, and no unlawful activities.

Udaiveer @ Baba Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6741 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Udaiveer @ Baba Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. and rejoinder affidavit filed thereto by learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated; that as per averments made in FIR lodged under Sections 364A, 307, 504 and 506, IPC on 5.6.2017 by Shripal, he was kidnapped by applicant and his associates on 5.6.2017 when he was getting work done under MGNREGA scheme and when the accused persons were chased by villagers and first informant was rescued, miscreants made indiscriminate firing with firing of villagers in reply as well as pelting; that during incident co-accused Mangal Singh sustained gun shot injury over his left forearm with five more injuries all over his body due to which he died on same day and as per postmortem report his death did take place due to shock and haemorrhage on account of ante mortem fire arm injury; that alleged eye witnesses of incident Amod, Abhilakh, Kashiram etc. have stated that fires made by applicant and his associates hit Mangal Rathor; that as per prosecution case there was indiscriminate firing from both side and applicant may not be considered to be author of solitary fire arm injury sustained by deceased; that co-accused Pankaj @ Yogesh Kumar and Chhotey Singh have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 7.10.2017 & 30.10.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.38218 of 2017 and 41254 of 2017, copies filed at Annexure-14; that applicant has explained his criminal history in para 10 of rejoinder affidavit and has filed copies of bail/acquittal orders collectively at Annexure R.A.-1; that applicant neither attempted kidnapping of first informant nor made any firing on the spot and has been falsely implicated due to

¶8

political rivalry; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 22.6.2017.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail.

¶10

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, grant of bail to co-accused as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Udaiveer @ Baba Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No. 308 of 2017, under Sections 364-A, 307, 504, 506, 304, I.P.C. and 10/12 Dacoity Affected Area Act, P.S. Bakewar, District Etawah, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶13

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.3.2019 T. Sinha

Udaiveer @ Baba Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udaiveer @ Baba Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Babita Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Kumar Giri Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Patel Vs State of U.P.

Jagram Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Shankar Gond Vs State of U.P.

Archana Vs State of U.P.