Allowed

Vinod Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2021BAIL/27895/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted bail to the applicant Vinod Yadav accused under Sections 7/25/35 of the Arms Act. The court relied on principles of reformative punishment and larger constitutional mandate without expressing a final opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including attending trial and non-interference with witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27895 of 2021 Applicant :- Vinod Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Istiyaq Ali,Ali Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.188 of 2021, under Section 7/25/35 of Arms Act, Police Station Shankargarh, District Prayagraj during the pendency of trial.

¶5

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The F.I.R. was lodged by the police against the applicant and two co-accused persons namely Prateek Singh and Pradeep Singh on the ground that the recovery of one country made pistol and five live cartridges have been made from a Mahendra Scorpio vehicle in which the applicant and other co-accused persons were traveling. It is further contended that the recovery has not been shown from the possession of the applicant but the country made pistol was recovered from the vehicle in which the applicant and two other co-accused persons were traveling. It is also contended that the offence is triable by magistrate. Lastly it is contended that the applicant is in jail since 29.05.2021 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶6

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶8

Let the applicant, Vinod Yadav involved in aforesaid crime 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.

¶9

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

¶10

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 7.9.2021

¶19

S.P.

Vinod Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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

Umesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhanraj Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Monu Kumar Bhart and Another Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Jatav Vs State of U.P.

Hoshiyar singh Vs State of U.P.

Nanhu @ Fulloo Vs State of U.P.