Allowed

Mohit Yadav @ Karu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 May 2019BAIL/8946/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to Mohit Yadav @ Karu in a criminal case involving Sections 412, 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC and D.A. Act. The applicant was released on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties with specific conditions to prevent tampering and harassment of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence or witnesses and not committing the offense.

Mohit Yadav @ Karu Vs State of U.P. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8946 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mohit Yadav @ Karu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.469 of 2018, under Sections 412, 420, 467, 468, 471, 307 I.P.C. & 12 D.A. Act, P.S.-Jaswant Nagar, DistrictEtawah.

¶7

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.

¶8

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.11.2018 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. It has been pointed out that the criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in paragraph No.11 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant- Mohit Yadav @ Karu involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶13

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶15

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.

¶16

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.5.2019 LN Tripathi

Mohit Yadav @ Karu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Yadav @ Karu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaushal Vs State of U.P.

Jageshwar Vs State of U.P.

Mufeed Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj @ Veerbhan Vs State of U.P.

Bismillah Khan Ahmadzai Vs Union of India Thru Narcotics Drugs Bureau , Lko

Babita Devi Vs State of U.P.