Allowed

Krishna Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2021BAIL/10204/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to Krishna Yadav, an applicant charged with Section 307 IPC, considering his prolonged jail custody since 2018, overcrowding concerns during the pandemic, and prima facie satisfaction of bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding attendance, non-tampering with witnesses, and avoiding illegal activities.

Krishna Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10204 of 2021 Applicant :- Krishna Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Prakash,Shad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶4

This is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38324 of 2018 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 3.12.2019. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that prosecution witnesses are not turning up despite issuance of repeated notices thus the trial could not be concluded and there is no hope of its conclusion in near future and the applicant is languishing in jail since 5.7.2018. It is next contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He is innocent and has no criminal antecedent. It is also submitted that there are general allegations and a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant did not commit any offence as alleged. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.7.2018. He undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶5

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶6

Courts have taken notice of overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of Covid 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶7

Having heard submissions of learned counsel of both sides, considering nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie

¶8

satisfaction in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶9

Let the applicant- Krishna Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 881 of 2018, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:

¶10

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶11

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶12

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶13

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

¶14

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.9.2021 Digamber

Krishna Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arif Vs State of U.P.

Durga Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Verma Vs State of U.P.

Anupam Vs State of U.P.

Robin @ Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Manoj and Another Vs State of U.P.