Allowed

Dabbu Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2022/3483/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to the applicant in a case under Sections 307 and 504 IPC, finding no sufficient evidence of criminal intent or motive and noting lack of independent eyewitness, imposing standard conditioning clauses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court, subject to four specific conditions.

Dabbu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3483 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dabbu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Tiwari,Ravi Shankar Mishra,Shameem Jahan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivstava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 18 of 2022, under Sections 307/504 IPC, Police Station- Amethi, District Amethi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He next added that criminal intent is missing and ingredients of Section 307 IPC does not attract in the instant matter. He next added that allegation against the present applicant is that he has opened fire over Suraj and Nand Kishore Singh but it was hit to Bhishma Pitamah and Dharmendra Yadav over legs and thigh. He further added that there is no independent public eye witness of the aforesaid incident and due to enmity the name of the present applicant has been implicated in the first information report. He next added that there are two cases previous criminal history of the applicant which has been explained in bail application as well as in the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 23.02.2022. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that main role of firing has been assigned to the present applicant and there are two cases previous criminal antecedent of the applicant. He next submits that recovery has also been done from the possession of the

¶10

applicant and as such he is involved in committing the aforesaid offence and he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that injuries found over the thigh and legs of the injured and as such prosecution has failed to prove any criminal intent of attempting murder to the injured persons; further as per the prosecution story, there was no motive to open fire over the injured persons; there is no independent public eye witness of the said incident; applicant has explained two cases criminal history in the bail application as well as supplementary affidavit and he is languishing in jail since 23.02.2022.

¶12

Thus, considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Dabbu Yadav involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3) The applicant 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.; and

¶17

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation

¶18

under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

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.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations 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 merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.11.2022 A.Kr*

¶22

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.11.10 09:25:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dabbu Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dabbu Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Mahesh Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Raju Verma @ Katte Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Prince Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Monis Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home and 4 Others

Babloo Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Veerendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.