Allowed

Ram Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2022BAIL/36806/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court allowed bail to Ram Chandra Yadav charged under Sections 392 and 411 IPC. The Court observed the object of bail is to secure appearance at trial and not punitive, citing Sanjay Chandra, and held the applicant made out a case.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail in furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or commit further crime.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36806 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Chandra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.K.Paramhans Singh,Manvendra Narain Pathak

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Ram Chandra Yadav with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.447 of 2021, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Deoria during pendency of the trial.

¶8

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Initially the applicant was arrested in Case Crime No.177 of 2021, under sections 41, 411, 413, 473 I.P.C. thereafter prosecution implicated the applicant in other cases. Applicant was arrested from his house. There is no independent witness or public witness to support the prosecution version. After arrest, applicant has been implicated in other cases. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is not a previous convict. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.08.2021 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.

¶10

The Hon. Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I. (2012) 1 SCC 40 , has observed that:

¶11

"21 In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶12

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before

¶13

conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

¶14

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant, Ram Chandra Yadav, who is involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 13.9.2022/SKD

¶21

Digitally signed by SURJIT KUMAR DEY Date: 2022.09.15 11:48:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandra 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

Ram Sewak Vs State of U.P.

Rajbahadur @ Raju Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kavita Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Pratap Vs State of U.P.

Ayushi Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Abhinav @ Lucky Vs State of U.P.