Allowed

Vinod Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023BAIL/17677/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to an applicant accused under Section 302 IPC who was arrested during investigation alleging false implication. The court noted a lack of direct evidence and approved release with stringent conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to eight specific conditions ensuring attendance and restricting conduct.

Vinod Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150866

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17677 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vinod Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Babu Lal Ram,Ali Hasan,Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Monis,Vikash Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The prosecution story in brief is that on 24.01.2023 the informant's father was returning to his home after distributing milk at about 09.00 hours due to an old dispute and as soon as he passed by Ram Abhilash's submersible, the accused Sonu Yadav, Pappu and an unknown person fired at him, who died spontaneously and they fled on two motor cycles.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and his name surfaced during the investigation on the basis of his arrest. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated merely on the ground of suspicion. There is no direct evidence against the applicant except the statement of the one Pooja Pal, who has stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she had an affair with the co-accused Sonu Yadav and that the deceased had made complaint about their affair to her mother, due to which, the co-accused Sonu became annoyed and that she has full confidence that the accused Sonu Yadav along with his friends has committed the murder of the deceased. Similar version has been repeated by the mother of Pooja Pal in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is thus contended that neither there is any direct or indirect evidence against the applicant and that the applicant has been falsely roped in the present case. other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to

¶9

cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 29.01.2023, having no criminal history.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶11

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view, that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let applicant Vinod Yadav involved in Case Crime No.16 of 2023 under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Karari, District Kaushambi, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶16

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails 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 I.P.C.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶18

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

¶20

The bail application is allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 S.Ali

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jari Haidar Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Dwivedi Vs State of U.P.

Jaefi Vs State of U.P.

Monu Ansari Alias Akhtar Kamal Vs State of U.P.

Indresh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rahul @ Dheera Vs State of U.P.