Allowed

Deepu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2022BAIL/1165/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed by Deepu Yadav, holding it a fit case for bail by referring to Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. The applicant was released on bail with standard conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and to ensure appearance in court.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing sureties subject to conditions against tampering and harassment.

Deepu Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1165 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Deepu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Archana Srivastava,Anand Pati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Deepu Yadav in connection with Case Crime No.570 of 2021, under Sections 364-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Dibiyapur, district Auraiya.

¶7

The first information report of this incident was lodged by the informant against the applicant and 5-6 unknown persons. It was alleged that the applicant is working in Aaptech Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai as R.C.M. and the project of his company was in progress in GAIL Pata Plant. It was also alleged that on 23.10.2021 when the informant was going along with his colleagues, he was forcibly taken away by some unknown persons to a house and he was brutally beaten by them and has taken Rs.5,000/- from him and said that he has to employ the applicant in his company on the post of Supervisor on a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- and he will do no work at all. It was further alleged that if the informant will not employed the applicant in his company then he will be killed by them. It was also alleged that later on, when the informant agreed to their suggestions, then he was released by them.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. He submitted that applicant has not demanded anything and has not received any ransom. He submitted that no identification parade was conducted by the police to ascertain the real culprits. He submitted that previous criminal history of the applicant has satisfactorily been explained in paragraph no.8 of the supplementary affidavit. He submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 24.10.2021, hence he is entitled to be released on bail and he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 , but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Deepu Yadav involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;

¶15

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission;

¶16

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.7.2022

¶18

R./

¶19

Digitally signed by RAJEEV KUMAR SACHDEVA Date: 2022.07.08 14:48:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Deepu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepu 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

Shivakant Pandey @ Bheiyan Vs State of U.P.

Arun @ Jahreele Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Ved Prakash@ Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Manjeet Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Chhotelal Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.