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

¶1

Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9090 of 2022 Applicant :- Chandan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shilendra Kumar,Rajendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bishwa Nath Nishad, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 324 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Paraspur, District Gonda.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not involved in committing any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He next added that though service of the present applicant has been terminated in the year 2017 vide order dated 28.10.2017 and after passing of three year, instant FIR has been lodged. He added that the applicant was not involved in committing the aforesaid offence and without taking into consideration of his explanation, service of the applicant has been terminated. He has falsely been shown to be involved in committing the aforesaid offence. He further submits that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant, which has been mentioned in para 16 of the bail application. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 20.06.2022. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶6

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that there are documentary evidence against the applicant and he had used forged and fabricated marksheets to obtain the government job as such services of the applicant were terminated and resultantantly, FIR was lodged against him and as such he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶7

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that matter pertains to year 2017 and after inquiry, the service of the present applicant was terminated and after three years, the instant FIR was lodged; further there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 20.06.2022.

¶8

Thus, considering the submissions of learned counsel of both

¶9

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.

¶10

Let the applicant- Chandan 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:-

¶11

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

¶12

(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;

¶13

(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

¶14

(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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.11.2022 A.Kr*

¶18

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.11.19 10:41:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shani Chaubey @ Alok Kumar Chaubey Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Raj Kishor @ Tobhu Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Bhagauti Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohammad Shanu Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anil Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

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