Allowed

Jayveer Yadav and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jun 2021BAIL/16457/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application in a robbery case involving sections 341, 394, and 411 IPC. Considering the nature of the offence and lack of identification parade, the court was satisfied to grant bail subject to strict conditions regarding presence in court and non-tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail based on a personal bond and two local sureties each, subject to conditions preventing tampering with witnesses and ensuring court attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16457 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Jayveer Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to enlarge them on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2021, under Sections 341, 394 & 411 I.P.C., Police Station Harduaganj, District Aligarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that according to the FIR version on 12th January, 2021 at about 21:20 hours four persons by wagonr car having arms confronting his motorcycle stopped and one miscreant beat on his head by butt of a country made pistol on account of which his head was lacerated and they snatched Rs. 15,000/-, ATM card of SBI, 2 mobile phones and Rs. 2000/- from his brother. He further submits that applicants were arrested in a police encounter case on 13.02.2021 and on the basis of confessional statement they have been falsely implicated in the case. Identification parade of applicants was also not conducted. There is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that there is a criminal history of 4 cases of the applicants including present one which have been explained in Paragraphs- 10 of the supplementary affidavit and they are languishing in jail since 14.01.2021.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants by submitting that applicants have a criminal history of 4 cases but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, nature of offence, applicants being not named and identification parade of the applicants was not conducted, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicants are entitled for bail, let the

¶10

applicants- Jayveer Yadav and Ashok Yadav involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶11

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicants shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶12

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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 them in accordance with law.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 11.6.2021 Israr

Jayveer Yadav and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayveer Yadav and Another 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

Akhand Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Veer Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Chhotelal Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rajat Singh @ Mintu Thakur Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kushwaha (Mithya) Vs State of U.P.