Allowed

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

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2021BAIL/32267/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Rajendra Yadav and another. Relying on Supreme Court precedents on human conditions in prisons and bail mandates, the court held that the applicants had made out a case for bail and ordered their release on personal bond and two sureties each.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail on personal bond and two sureties each subject to conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32267 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Tiwari,Ashok Kumar Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 41 of 2021, registered under Sections 323, 504, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Tahbarpur, District Azamgarh during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. The informant is not an eyewitness of the incident and from the statement of eyewitness Deepak Nishad and Smt. Seema Thather role of assault or hitting is assigned to co-accuse. No specific role has been assigned to the applicants, on account of father of the coaccused, applicants have been implicated in the present case. Applicants have no concern with the present case. The applicants are languishing in jail since 02.06.2021 having no previous criminal antecedents. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants.

¶10

Considering the material available on record and keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused and the Apex Court view pertain to the Article 21 of the Constitution of India held in In human conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re: (2017) 10 SCC 658 and the mandate laid down by Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicants, namely, Rajendra Yadav and Ramayan Yadav, who are involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on their 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.

¶12

The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶14

The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶15

The applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 1.12.2021 Nitin Verma

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharamveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anees Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishna Sahani @ Patru and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Abhinav Yadav @ Pawan Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.