Allowed

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2022BAIL/3959/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of Rahul Yadav in a case under Sections 392 and 411 IPC. The Court considered jail overcrowding due to the pandemic, the applicant's lack of criminal history, and his claim of false implication, deciding it was a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3959 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijai Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.475 of 2021, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar.

¶7

Contention is that the applicant has no criminal history and he has also not been arrested on the spot. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Submission is that applicant's implication has surfaced on the basis of statement of Shahrukh, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.53866 of 2021 on 10.2.2022. The applicant is languishing in jail since 1.11.2021. It is further argued that the trial is not likely to be concluded shortly on account of Covid-19 pandemic and that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the conduct of trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposes the bail application.

¶9

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail application on behalf of accused person.

¶10

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record, severity of punishment, totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Rahul Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of

¶12

magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶14

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶16

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.2.2022 Anil

¶20

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.02.14 18:30:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharik Vs State of U.P.

Durveen Vs State of U.P.

Gyan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Aafir @ Sawej @ Sajeb Vs State of U.P.

Sikandar Vs State of U.P.

Ranjhal Saxena Vs State of U.P.