Allowed

Lal Bahadur Yadav @ L.B Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2020BAIL/8325/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J. granted bail to Lal Bahadur Yadav in a murder case under Section 302 IPC. The court imposed strict conditions requiring presence at critical stages and attendance on all dates, with penalties for default.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions including mandatory court attendance and prohibition of witness tampering.

Lal Bahadur Yadav @ L.B Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8325 of 2020 Applicant :- Lal Bahadur Yadav @ L.B Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav , learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶4

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Lal Bahadur Yadav @ L.B Yadav , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 146 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh.

¶5

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against three unknown persons and Israr Ahmad (block pramukh) alleging that on 23.8.2019 at 6 a.m. unknown persons shot fire at Munib (brother of complainant) with conspiracy of applicant. According to postmortem report, four injuries were found i.e. two entry and two exit. During investigation, names of Rajmangal Yadav, Guddu Yadav and Dahrmendra were surfaced. Rajmangal Yadav was arrested by the police, he stated that due to some dispute of money and misbehaved of deceased, he (Rajmangal) and Guddu shot fire at deceased.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The first informant even in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 23.08.2019 has not named the applicant. The applicant is even not named in the F.I.R. Subsequently, in the second statement of the first informant recorded on 18.10.2019, the copy of which has been annexed as Annexure- SA- 8 to the supplementary affidavit, it is for the first time that the name of the applicant has surfaced in the present matter. It is thus argued that the delayed disclosure of the name of the applicant clearly shows that the same is as a result of tutoring. The applicant is said to have been previously involved in 04 criminal cases which have been duly explained in paragraphs 21-24 of the supplementary affidavit. There is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or the pointing out of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 03.12.2019.

¶7

Per contra learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

Let the applicant, Lal Bahadur Yadav @ L.B Yadav, be

¶9

released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶10

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶11

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶12

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶13

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶14

(v) 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶15

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶16

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶17

Order Date :- 6.3.2020 / AS Rathore

¶18

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Lal Bahadur Yadav @ L.B Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Bahadur Yadav @ L.B 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

Vikram @ Bantu Vs State of U.P.

Bhagauti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Goswami Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Chandra Jha Vs State of U.P. and Another