The High Court allowed the bail application of Chandrabhan Yadav, accused of misappropriation and forgery. Bail was granted citing pandemic concerns and the specific facts of the case, subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence.
Released on personal bond and two sureties, conditionalized on pandemic restrictions and standard bail conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7871 of 2020
Applicant :- Chandrabhan Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav,Alakshendra Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manvendra Narain Pathak
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Dhanjay Pratap Singh holding brief of Shri M.N. Pathak,learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.
The allegation in the First Information Report is against the eleven named accused persons. The applicant is said to be Chief Development Officer(C.D.O.) of the company which was involved in collecting money from the public.There is further allegation that money collected from the investors was misappropriated by the accused persons and they vanished after closing the company.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant was also agent like coaccused, Sunil Kumar Majhi.He was neither the director nor the member of the board of directors. The misappropriation has been done by the company and same has not been implicated.The applicant and other co-accused are vicariously liable of the act of the company.The managing director of the company is co-accused, Shiv Nath Sahani. Another co-accused Sunil Kumar Majhi, who was identically placed, has already been granted bail by this court vide order dated7.8.2020 in Criminal Misc. bail Application No. 10399 of 2020. The applicant is in jail since 10.12.2019 and has no criminal history.
Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact..
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, spreading of novel corona virus in jails, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court
in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Chandrabhan Yadav, who is involved in Case Crime No. 40 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C, Police Station-Salempur , District- Deoria, be released on bail on his 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 6.10.2020 Atul kr. sri.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶8
(2018)3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Chandrabhan Yadav
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
