Allowed

Ranjit Kumar Yadav @ Pulla Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023BAIL/15553/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third division bench allowed the fourth bail application of the applicant in a murder case, citing long incarceration, uncertainty in trial conclusion, and jail overcrowding under Article 21, directing expeditious trial within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail with personal and surety bonds under specified conditions regarding trial attendance and evidence tampering.

Ranjit Kumar Yadav @ Pulla Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:134292

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15553 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Ranjit Kumar Yadav @ Pulla Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pravesh Kumar Tripathi,Vijendra Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This is fourth bail application. Third bail application of the applicant was rejected by coordinate bench of this court on 11.01.2019. Thereafter four prosecution witnesses have been examined and four formal witnesses remain to be examined. Applicant is in jail since 16.05.2016. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of single blow and the offence under Section 302 I.P.C is not made out against the applicant. Even otherwise keeping his long incarceration in jail and being first implication, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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.

¶10

Let the applicant, Ranjit Kumar Yadav @ Pula Yadav, involved in Case Crime No.198 of 2016, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Piparaich, District Gorakhpur 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.

¶11

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not

¶13

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

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(v) 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) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant 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 him in accordance with law.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶18

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

¶19

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of six weeks.

¶20

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial court concerned within ten days.

¶21

Order Date :- 7.7.2023 SS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranjit Kumar Yadav @ Pulla Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Kumar Yadav @ Pulla 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

Rajendra Raidas Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev @ Sandeep Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Savej Vs State of U.P.

Rishu Kushwaha@ Kamal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others