Allowed

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

Allahabad HC11 May 2022BAIL/6336/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to applicants accused of rioting and attempted murder. The court noted co-accused were already on bail and injuries were simple. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions to ensure attendance and prevent abuse.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions for court attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6336 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Nihal Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nand Kishor Mishra,Rajendra Singh,Shilpa Ahuja,Shiv Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Singh Sengar

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants seeking bail in Case Crime No. 253 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 506/34 IPC, Police Station-Panwari, District Mahoba.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that the applicants have no criminal history to their credit, which has not been disputed by the learned AGA. It is stated that the FIR is the outcome of village party bandi particularly related to the election for the post of Village Pradhan. As per story of the prosecution, the applicant No.1 was having country made pistol with him. It is also stated that the applicant No.2, as per story of the prosecution, was armed with lathi and a country made pistol. However, there is no fire arm injury sustained by the injured(s) namely Dharmendra and Devi Singh. In regard to the injuries sustained, it is not clear that who is the author of the injuries sustained which in fact are simple in nature. As such, no offence under Seciton 307 IPC is made out against the applicants.

¶8

It is further submitted that co-accused Chhatrapal Yadav @ Bhura, who as per story of the prosecution, was armed with an axe and other co-accused Bhupendra Yadav, armed with lathi, have already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5942 of 2022. Accordingly, the applicants are also entitled for bail. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty of bail and the applicants are in jail since 11.01.2022 and the possibility of the conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accusedapplicants that co-accused have already been released on bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in mind that co-accused have already been

¶11

released on bail by this Court and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶12

Let applicants - Nihal Yadav and Deen Dayal Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on their furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶14

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶17

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶18

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶19

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶20

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.5.2022 Vinay/-

¶22

Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR Date: 2022.05.11 15:09:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nihal 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

Kallu @ Amit Vs State of U.P.

Pappu @ Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Ajruddin @ Salman Vs State of U.P.

Danish Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jai Niwas Gupta @ Lala Gupta Vs State of U.P.