Kiran Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1896 of 2020

Applicant :- Kiran Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sheikh Obaidullah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sheikh Obaidullah, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that allegation against the applicant is that she has sought appointment as Assistant Teacher on the basis of forged TET certificate. She was appointed in the year 2016 and she has now been dismissed from service on 1.6.2019. The matter needs deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to and the applicant will participate and cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has no criminal antecedent to her credit. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶7

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

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶9

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Kiran Yadav involved in Case Crime No.0014 of 2020 under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C., Police Station Dullahpur, District Ghazipur, she shall be released on anticipatory on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶11

that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶12

that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶13

that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶14

that the investigating officer is directed to conclude the investigation in the present case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this court while considering or deciding the present bail application of the applicant;

¶15

that the applicant is directed to produce certified copy of this order before the SSP/SP concerned within 10 days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of the present order;

¶16

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶20

It is made clear that if the charge-sheet is submitted and cognizance is taken and matter is committed to the court of session, as the case may be, the trial court shall decide the trial preferably within a period of one year from the date of cognizance/ committal of the case to the Court of Sessions.

¶21

In view of aforesaid, the application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 24.2.2020

¶23

MN/-

Kiran Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radha Krishna Bharti Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilavar and Another Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Pyaare Lal Vs State of U.P.

Netrapal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another