Vijay Yadav @ Jeetu Yadav v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Single Judge rejected the bail application of a petitioner accused of stealing via ATM fraud. The Court held that new evidence of CCTV identification and unrevised recovery reports precluded reliance on the bail order of a co-accused, warranting rejection.
What did the court decide?
Bail application rejected; applicant not entitled to release at this stage.
What the court decided
Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13453 of 2023
Applicant :- Vijay Yadav @ Jeetu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Sharma,Vibhor Arora Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Vibhor Arora, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-Ist for the State.
The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 037 of 2023, under Sections 420, 379 IPC, Police Station Cantt., District- Gorakhpur during pendency of the trial in the court below.
FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown ATM card holders under Sections 379, 420 IPC and according to the FIR, by playing fraud from the ATM machines of the bank on different dates total Rs.1,69,500/- was withdrawn.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the first information report and it is alleged that applicant and co-accused persons were arrested by the police during the course of investigation and they confessed their guilt and from the possession of applicant Rs.42,000/- was recovered and on the basis of the recovery of Rs.42,000/- along with 6 ATM cards and confessional statement of applicant, applicant has been made accused in the present matter. He further submitted that entire recovery is totally fake and planted one and in fact applicant never committed the alleged offence. He further submitted that coaccused, Faiz Khan, who was also arrested along with the applicant has already been released on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.03.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8364 of 2023. He produced the bail order of the co-accused, Faiz Khan during the course of arguments, which is taken on record. He further submitted that applicant is although having criminal history of two other cases but he has explained the criminal history in the affidavit filed in support of the present bail application and all the offences are triable by Magistrate Ist Class and maximum punishment provided under the alleged offences is
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail given the recovery of cash, recovered ATM cards, and identification through CCTV despite criminal charges under Sections 420 and 379 IPC.
Whether the applicant can rely on the bail order granted to a co-accused as the new evidence (CCTV footage and unreproduced seizure memo) was not before the earlier Bench.
Whether the prior criminal history and nature of the evidence preclude the grant of bail at this stage.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Vijay Yadav @ Jeetu Yadav
Coram
Sameer Jain
Aditya Kushwaha
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/13453/2023
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court