Allowed

Akash Singh Yadav @ Chhotu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2022BAIL/720/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant accused of murder (under IPC 147, 302, 506) in a case based on circumstantial evidence and alleged false implication. Considering jail overcrowding and the applicant's clean record, the High Court allowed bail with strict conditions to ensure trial attendance and expeditious disposal within two years.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties; directions to trial court to expedite trial within two years.

Akash Singh Yadav @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 720 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Akash Singh Yadav @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Rai,P.K. Singh,Vipin Kumar Singh

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Akash Singh Yadav @ Chhotu, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 364 of 2021, under Sections 147,302,506 IPC Police Station Zamanta, DistrictGhazipur, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation in the First Information Report that deceased left his house on 18.7.2021 for Lucknow but did not returned even after two days.He went to his sister house at Jamaniya. Thereafter he went missing. After four days his dead body was recovered from 'Nala'.The cause of death of the deceased was found to be antemortem head injury.The deceased suffered contused swelling on the left temporal occipital region of skull and after dissection underlying bone was found fractured.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of his confessional statement of mother of the deceased. She stated that deceased and applicant both had affair with co-accused,Suman Yadav and on account of aforesaid dispute he was done to death by applicant. It is case of circumstantial evidence. The applicant is in jail since 30.11.2021 and has no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of

¶11

India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant 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.

¶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

That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer;

¶17

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

The applicant 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)

¶19

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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

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

¶21

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of two years from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.9.2022 Atul kr. sri.

¶23

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.20 14:52:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akash Singh Yadav @ Chhotu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Singh Yadav @ Chhotu 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

Nagendra @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parmeshwari Vs State of U.P.

Shavej Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Vs State of U.P.

Satya Narain Vs State of U.P.

Indrajeet Lodh Vs State of U.P.