Allowed

Rajneesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2022BAIL/5836/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal bail application involved a plea for release of the applicant in connection with offences under IPCSections 386 and 504. The court granted bail upon its own satisfaction considering the nature of the accusation, submitted evidence, and constitutional rights. Conditions for release, including personal bond and compliance requirements, were stipulated.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation in trial and presence in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5836 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rajneesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.K.Paramhans Singh,Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant Rajneesh Yadav for enlarging him on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 239 of 2021, under Sections 386, 504 I.P.C., P.S.Jiyanpur, District- Azamgarh,, during the pendency of trial .

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is friend of Nagendra Yadav and due to Pradhani election, applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant has not demanded any amount from the informant and had not taken any signature of the informant on paper. Applicant has criminal history of 8 cases which have been explained by the applicant. It is next submitted that the coaccused Nagendra Yadav has already enlarged on bail by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.56420 of 2021 vide order dated 20.04.2022, copy of the bail order is kept on record. Hence, applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant undertakes that in case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in custody since 13.10.2021. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant has criminal history of murder of three cases. Applicant is goon of the area.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex

¶11

Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Rajneesh Yadav involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶17

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court at the time of 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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.4.2022 Priya

¶21

Digitally signed by PRIYA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.04.28 14:44:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajneesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh 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

Azim Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Sajid Ali Vs State of U.P.

Aman @ Sadik Vs State of U.P.

Ravendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home

Vijay Verma @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Sahani Vs State of U.P.