Allowed

Dayashankar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2023BAIL/16648/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was disposed of by allowing the release of the applicant, Dayashankar Yadav. The applicant submitted a demand draft for Rs. 50,000 as required. The State offered no opposition or grounds to deny bail, and the court relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to seven specific conditions including not tampering with evidence and not leaving India.

Dayashankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:225800

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16648 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dayashankar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abdul Saleem Ahamad,Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun,Satya Priya Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has produced a demand draft of State Bank of India of an amount of Rs. 50,000 in the name of Ranjana Singh dated 02.11.2023, demand draft No. 491378. The said demand draft has been handed over to the learned counsel for the informant who has accepted the same. The aforesaid amount has been paid in pursuance to the order dated 27.10.2023 of this Court.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had paid the disputed amount and as such he is entitled to be released on bail. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 23.03.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have not opposed the bail application.

¶11

Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶12

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶13

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA for the State has not shown any

¶14

exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶15

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶17

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties 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.

¶19

Let the applicant Dayashankar Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 22 of 2021, under section 419, 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Balua, District Chandauli, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶20

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶23

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶24

v. 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 officer or tamper with the

¶25

evidence.

¶26

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶27

vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶29

Order Date :- 29.11.2023

¶30

K.K. Maurya

¶31

Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dayashankar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayashankar 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

Varan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Punit Verma Vs State of U.P.

Monu @ Jaiprakash Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Abhishet Kumar @ Chotu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Binna@ Siyaram Vs State of U.P.

Rukmesh and Another Vs State of U.P.