Allowed

Yogendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2020BAIL/8465/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the bail application of Yogendra in a criminal case involving affray and attempting murder. The court imposed strict conditions regarding attendance and non-tampering with evidence before releasing him on bail and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and preventing abuse of process.

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

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8465 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Yogendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar,Madan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nagendra Bahadur Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh on behalf of the first informant is taken on record.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and the learned A.G.A.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Yogendra , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 215 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452, 307, 506, 324/34 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kotwali City, District Bijnor.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that a dispute took place between the side of the applicant and the first informant. Cross reports of the incident dated 08.03.2019 have been lodged. Two persons namely Rajveer and Bharat received injuries and died from the side of the prosecution and one Baljeet received injuries and is the injured witness. It is further argued from the side of the applicants in the cross case Sanjeev, Prashant and Satyaveer have received injuries. The said injury reports are annexed with the bail application. It is thus argued that the present case is a cross case. It is further argued that a charge-sheet has been submitted in the F.I.R lodged from the side of the applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the case of Lakshmi Singh vs. State of Bihar, 1976 LawSuit (SC) 325 . It is further argued that co-accused Aruni Alias Anni has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.02.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 7318 of 2020. The bail of co-accused, Sanjeev has been granted by this Court vide order dated 06.03.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8410 of 2020. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the distinguishing feature in the present case is that the present

¶11

applicant has a criminal history of two cases which have been duly explained in para 9 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 18.03.2019.

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant has been assigned the role and the version in the F.I.R is true and correct but could not dispute the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find it a fit case for bail. Let the applicant, Yogendra, be 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 6.3.2020 AS Rathore

¶22

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Yogendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra 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

Cases cited

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.

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

Sanjeev Vs State of U.P.

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