Allowed

Sandeep Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 May 2022BAIL/14470/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court disposed of a bail application in a murder case. The court found it a fit case for bail without commenting on merits, imposing conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition on seeking adjournments during witness testimony.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions of attendance and conduct.

Sandeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14470 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant, Sandeep Yadav, who is involved in Case Crime No. 259 of 2021, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station- Karimuddinpur, District- Ghazipur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that even though the eye witness had stated that both the applicant and Durgesh Dom had killed the deceased with a dagger, it is contended that only one injury was found on the body of the deceased. He further states that it is also clear from the recovery memo (at page 28 of the application) that nothing had been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is still further contended that the statement is clearly to the effect that the Durgesh Dom had inflicted the injury. The applicant had only a role of catching hold of the deceased. It is further submitted that the applicant has no other criminal history and is in jail since 20.12.2021 and if he is released on bail, there is no chance of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not deny the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant, Sandeep Kumar be released on bail in Case Crime No. 259 of 2021, under Section 302 of I.P.C., Police Station- Karimuddinpur, District- Ghazipur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned,

¶11

subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) 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 the court.

¶13

In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

(ii) The applicant 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 Panel Code.

¶15

(iii) 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 n such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Panel Code.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case (ii) framing of charges and (iii) recording of statement under Section 323 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as an abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.5.2022 vkj

¶18

Digitally signed by VIJAY KRISHNA JAISWAL Date: 2022.05.17 14:31:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Pratap and Others Vs Union of India and Others

Ghana Nand Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Others

Dr. Sweta Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Meera Devi Vs State of U.P.

Raheesh Vs State of U.P.

Anarkali and Another Vs State of U.P.