Allowed

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023BAIL/2795/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a bail application in a case under Sections 307 and 323 IPC. The court noted that the applicant was not named in the initial FIR, was nominated post-arrest, and that prosecution evidence did not connect him to the offense. The bail was granted on a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and to appear in co

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses and to appear on fixed dates.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2795 of 2023 Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 127 of 2022 at Police Station- Bahariyabad, District- Ghazipur under Sections 307, 323 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 24.10.2022.

¶5

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 04.01.2023.

¶6

The following arguments made by Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Deepak Kapoor, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶7

(1). The applicant was not named in the FIR.

¶8

(2). The applicant was nominated after his arrest in a fake encounter staged by the police authorities to burnish their

¶9

professional credentials.

¶10

(3). The applicant has been nominated only on the footing of a confessional statement made by him before the police authorities. The said statement was extracted by coercion and made under duress.

¶11

(4). The applicant was nominated in the second statement of the injured made one and half months after the incident. The said statement is an afterthought.

¶12

(5). No incriminating article has been recovered from the applicant.

¶13

(6). No test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities.

¶14

(7). Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶15

(8). The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant belongs to the economically poor strata of the society and is a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities. The applicant has been falsely nominated in a number of cases only to show the proficiency of the police investigators. The said criminal

¶16

cases do not depict commission of any heinous crime and do not have any bearing on the instant bail application. The applicant has never misused the liberty of bail granted in the said cases.

¶17

(9). The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶18

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant- Rahul Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the

¶21

trial.

¶22

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶23

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 Pravin

¶24

Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Imran @ Tatti @ Kala Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Rathi Vs State of U.P.

Jagpal Vs State of U.P.

Noor Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. and Another

Meera Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.