Allowed

Sudhakar Yadav @ Chhotu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2020BAIL/17898/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application sought release for an accused named under Section 302 IPC who was implicated via a co-accused statement. The court allowed bail pending trial subject to standard conditions and verification of sureties. No precedent was cited.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail in a personal bond with two sureties subject to court-mandated conditions regarding trial attendance and s warrant loyalty.

Sudhakar Yadav @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17898 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sudhakar Yadav @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bibhuti Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 332 of 2017, under Sections 394, 302, 412, 120B I.P.C. and Section 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Nautanwa, district-Maharajganj, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

The first information report of the incident was lodged by the complainant against unknown persons regarding murder of his parents.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. His name as an accused in the present case surfaced for the first time after seventeen days of the incident in the confessional statement of co-accused Sant Kumar Yadav recorded before the police after he was taken into custody. He next submits that the applicant happens to be grandson of the deceased and there is no question arises as to why the present accused shall commit the murder of his own grandfather and grandmother. Further submission is that the alleged recovery which has been shown from the applicant's possession is totally false and there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. He also submits that there is no last seen evidence against the applicant. He is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. He also submits that similarly placed other coaccused Sangam Gaur and Firoz Khan have already been enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 14.8.2018 and 23.8.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application nos. 19388 of 2018 and 32043 of 2018, copy of the bail orders produced by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. He lastly submits that the applicant, who is in jail since 9.10.2017 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but has not disputed the fact that name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Sant Kumar Yadav.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶11

Let the applicant, Sudhakar Yadav @ Chhotu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶13

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶14

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶15

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶18

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.11.2020 Faridul

Sudhakar Yadav @ Chhotu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Yadav @ Chhotu 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

Niyajuddin @ Akku Vs State of U.P.

Anand Bhati @ Aditya Vs State of U.P.

Akhlakh Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Subham Yadav @ Shanu Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another