Allowed

Raju Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2020BAIL/41173/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to the applicant, Raju Yadav, trapped in a second-degree murder case. The court noted the charge sheet was downgraded from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the alleged crime involved another accused, necessitating his release on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond without immediate sureties, with extensive conditions regarding court attendance and potential abuse of bail privileges.

Raju Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41173 of 2020

¶2

Applicant :- Raju Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Kuntal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Sweety Srivastava

¶3

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mahesh Kumar Kuntal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶5

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 296 of 2020, under Sections 306/147 IPC, Police Station- Sipri Bazar, District-Jhansi is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.08.2020.

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that initially the FIR was got registered under Sections 147, 302 IPC against six named and certain unknown persons by one Anil Yadav/informant. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after conclusion of the investigation the charge sheet was submitted under section 306 and 147 IPC. Contention raised by the counsel that during course of investigation a letter was recovered from the pocket of the deceased revealing different story altogether. The alleged tussle is in between the deceased ad co-accused Amar Singh. The applicant is distinctly related to Amar Singh and that is why falsely roped in. But neither the Investigating Officer of the case nor learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out any material which could be said that the action of the applicant false within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. There is no goading or abetment on the part of the applicant. The applicant is a distinct unit altogether and is nothing to do with interse relationship with Amar Singh Yadav.

¶7

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant Raju Yadav , who is involved in case crime no. 296 of 2020, under Sections 306/147 IPC, Police Station- Sipri Bazar, District-Jhansi, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶10

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶11

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶12

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶13

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶14

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶16

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶17

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶18

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶19

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 7.12.2020 Abhishek Sri.

Raju Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju 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

Ashok Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sarvendra Vs State of U.P.

Chhaya Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Pooja Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt Durgawati Mishra Vs State of U.P.