Allowed

R. K. Yadav @ Rinku Yadav @ Om Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2023/2436/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application for an applicant accused of theft under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. The court held that the applicant was implicated solely on the basis of co-accused statements, no incriminating material was recovered from him, and he had a history of being granted bail in similar cases, warranting his release on bond.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, pressuring witnesses, and non-appearanc

R. K. Yadav @ Rinku Yadav @ Om Prakash Yadav Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:72996

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2436 of 2023 Applicant :- R. K. Yadav @ Rinku Yadav @ Om Prakash Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Tripathi,Vyas Narayan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vyas Narayan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 254 of 2021, under Sections 457, 380 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Motigarpur, District Sultanpur.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 09.08.2021 alleging commission of theft from the informant's shop committed by some unknown persons.

¶8

Police claimed to have arrested two other persons and recovered some articles from their possession. The applicant has been implicated in the present case on the basis of custodial statements of those two arrested persons.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant's criminal history of 23 cases has been disclosed in para 15 of the affidavit, in all of which, the applicant has been granted bail. The applicant has been implicated in Case Crime No.254 of 2021 under Sections 457, 380 IPC, Police Station Motigarpur, District Sultanpur also on the basis of similar statement.

¶10

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and

¶12

keeping in view the fact that the applicant has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of custodial statement of co-accused persons and no incriminating material has been recovered from the applicant and that he has already been granted bail in another case of similar nature; that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.04.2022 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶13

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- R. K. Yadav @ Rinku Yadav @ Om Prakash Yadav be released on bail in aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶16

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶17

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶18

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 6.11.2023 Preeti.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

R. K. Yadav @ Rinku Yadav @ Om Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. K. Yadav @ Rinku Yadav @ Om Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Parvez Beg Vs State of U.P. Thru. Pirn. Secy. Home Lko.

Vishwanath Prasad Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Krishna Dev Vs State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Uma Devi Alias Usha Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

R.K Yadav @ Rinku Yadav @ Om Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Kusum Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. U.P. Lko. and Another