Allowed

Kamlesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2022BAIL/28188/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed bail to Kamlesh Yadav, a godown keeper accused of misappropriating fertilizer, who had been in jail since June 2022. The court relied on Article 21 and recent apex court decisions involving bail in economic offenses, while noting the applicant's lack of criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence and presence during trial proceedings.

Kamlesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28188 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kamlesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- V.R. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Kamlesh Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 36 of 2021, under Section 409 IPC and section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act Police Station Kandharapur, District- Azamgarh, during pendency of trial.

¶7

There is allegation of misappropriation of more than 6,000 bags and fertilizer (D.P.A.) and Urea against the applicant.He was godown keeper of P.C.F. Azamgarh.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant was only godown keeper .There were senior ofÏcers who were responsible for the alleged offence but they have not been implicated.The applicant is in jail since 2.6.2022 and has no criminal history.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and recent judgement dated 11.7.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶12

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶13

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶14

That 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer;

¶15

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶16

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. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 28.7.2022

¶19

Atul kr. sri.

¶20

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.29 18:28:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamlesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shailesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Mushtaque Alam Vs State of U.P.

Akshya Vs State of U.P.and Another

Zaseem @ Appu Vs State of U.P.

Amit Vs State of U.P.