Allowed

Akhilesh Yadav and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2022BAIL/36597/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court allowed Akhilesh Yadav and Jaibahadur Yadav to be released on bail in a murder case pending trial. The applicants alleged false implication, while the state opposed. The court found a case for bail but imposed strict conditions regarding presence, sureties, and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail subject to furnishing personal bond and two local sureties each, and strict conditions of conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36597 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Akhilesh Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shabana Nizam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhay Singh Tomar,Abhishek Bhushan,Adarsh Bhushan

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

The case is taken up in the revised call.

¶6

Heard Ms. Shabana Nizam, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Abhay Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants– Akhilesh Yadav and Jaibahadur Yadav with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.151 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506, 304, 308 IPC, Police Station-Sikrara, District-Jaunpur, during pendency of trial.

¶8

As per the prosecution case, the FIR has been lodged by the informant, namely, Kamlesh Kumar Yadav against as many as six named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that on 13.06.2022 at about 04:00 pm, all the accused persons, namely, Basant Lal Yadav, Kamta Prasad Yadav, Jaibahadur Yadav (applicant herein), Satya Prakash Yadav, Vimlesh Yadav and Akhilesh Yadav (applicant herein) came and assaulted the informant's father by lathi, danda and Gadasi as a result of which his father sustained fracture injuries alongwith other serious injuries which resulted his death. The accused persons extended life threatening call and ran away. Thereafter, during course of treatment, the informant's father died.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. He further submits that general role of causing injury has been assigned to all the accused persons. As per the postmortem report, there is one serious injury on nose of the deceased apart from the other injuries. However, there is no specific allegation as to which injury has resulted to the death of the deceased and who has caused it. He further submits that the recovery, which is said to have been made from the

¶10

applicant, was planted one as there is no independent/public witness of the alleged recovery. There was a civil dispute between the parties, due to which a fight took place. The accused persons have not caused any such injury with intention to cause death of the deceased. He further submits that the applicants have no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicants are languishing in jail since 13.07.2022. Accordingly, he requests for bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants by contending that the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicants has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicants involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicants 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. 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.

¶15

(ii) The applicants 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.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicants 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 applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal

¶17

Code.

¶18

(iv) The applicants 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 absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶20

It goes without saying that if the prosecution witnesses are not turning up deliberately, then the court below has all the powers to adopt all the coercive measures provided under the Code in order to procure the presence of the witnesses.

¶21

Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order forthwith to concerned court for necessary compliance.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.12.2022 Jitendra/-

¶23

Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV Date: 2022.12.22 11:43:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhilesh Yadav and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Yadav and Another 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

Sangeeta Vs State of U.P.

Sukkhu @ Sukhe Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Abrar Mulla Vs State of U.P.

Nurul Hasan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar Vats Vs State of U.P.

Satish Vs State of U.P.