Allowed

Shiv Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2020BAIL/2847/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2847 of 2020, the court granted bail to applicant Shiv Yadav involved in case under Sections 427, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., balancing detention severity, co-accused bail, and lack of flight risk without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in Crime No.225 of 2019 on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence or witnesses and cooperating with trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2847 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Shiv Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amaresh Yadava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No.225 of 2019, under Sections 427, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh, applied for bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he has committed no offence; entire prosecution story is false and fake. He further submitted that main role of causing injury to the victim has been assigned to co-accused Raju Yadav whereas only role of exhortation has been assigned to the applicant. He further pointed out that the co-accused Dharmendra Sharma has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.1.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2879 of 2020 and the case of the applicant stands of identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Applicant is in jail since 13.11.2019. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of applicant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction, bail order of co-accused and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail.

¶11

Accordingly, bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let applicant Shiv Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶15

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.

¶16

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.1.2020 Manoj

Shiv Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reenoo and Another Vs State of U.P.

Raj Sharan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manna Alias Rahman Vs State of U.P.

Khardookshan @ Bhaiyyan @ Tiger Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.