Allowed

Chandan @ Yogendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023BAIL/35326/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a bail application filed by Chandan @ Yogendra Yadav. The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail, noting no allegation of sexual assault and no material showing risk to witness safety or public interest, granting bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted: release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions including non-tampering with evidence, no intimidation of witnesses, and prohibition from leaving India.

Chandan @ Yogendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178274

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35326 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Chandan @ Yogendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Karan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Archana Singh,Shailendra Singh

¶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, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per FIR, it is alleged that applicant has entered into the house of the informant and has held the hand of the daughter of the informant. Subsequently, the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded where she has stated that applicant has held the hand. It is submitted that there is no allegation of sexual assault. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 30.6.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the informant does not dispute the fact that there is no allegation of sexual assault and only the hand of victim was held by the applicant.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.3 opposed the prayer for bail but do not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶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 there is a possibility of interdicting fair trial by the accused-applicant if released on bail. No material has been shown that the Applicant is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or there is any material to show that applicant will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶13

The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, the detention of the accused pending trial cannot be punitive in nature as there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person. Learned A.G.A. has not brought any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that the character of the accusedapplicant (s) is such that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witness.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has not placed any reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/State will be at peril in case the Applicant is released on bail.

¶15

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has been convicted for any offence on previous occasion.

¶16

No material has been placed by the opposite party that the Applicant in the past has attempted to evade the process of law. Further, no material facts and circumstances have been placed to show that it is not in public interest or interest of society at large to release the applicant on bail.

¶17

No material has been shown to suggest that the applicant is at flight risk, has chance of repeating the offence, or intimidating the witness if enlarged on bail.

¶18

It is to be seen that in the present case, applicant has entered into the house of the informant and has held the hand of the daughter of the informant. The statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded where she has stated that applicant has held the hand. There is no allegation of sexual assault. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 30.6.2023

¶19

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.

¶20

Let the applicant Chandan @ Yogendra Yadav involved in Case Crime No.91 of 2023, under Sections 452, 354, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Kalinjar, District Banda 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:-

¶21

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

Order Date :- 15.9.2023 D. Tamang

¶29

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandan @ Yogendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan @ Yogendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nasruddin Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Bitchu Nishad @ Bitch Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Pratap Singh Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pankaj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeeta Vs State of U.P.