Allowed

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

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2022/8711/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal bail application. The court observed that the applicant was not named in the FIR and found sufficient justification to grant bail, imposing standard conditions regarding witness tampering, court attendance, and procedural compliance.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Rahul Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8711 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Brihaspati Mani Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arpit Chaudhary, Advocate holding brief of Sri Bishwa Nath Nishad, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 280 of 2022, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. He next added that the applicant is not named in the first information report and police has planted him in the instant matter. He further submits that there is no cogent piece of evidence so as to connect him in the instant matter. He further added that the applicant has explained two cases previous criminal antecedent in para 13 and 14 of the bail application and except apart, there is no other previous criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 23.04.2022. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that the applicant was arrested and there is sufficient evidence against the applicant to connect him in the instant matter and as such he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and after perusal of record, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the FIR and as per assertion of learned counsel for the applicant, there is no cogent piece of evidence so as to connect him in the instant matter; further two cases criminal history has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 23.04.2022.

¶10

Thus, considering the submissions of learned counsel of both

¶11

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.

¶12

Let the applicant- Rahul Kumar 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

(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;

¶15

(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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.11.2022 A.Kr*

¶20

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.11.15 10:43:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Banjara Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Home Lko.

Shyam Narain Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko

Shivam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko.

Ramfer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Hari Bhajan Vs State of Up Thru.Prin.Secy.Home

Jaysurya @ Rohit Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.