Allowed

Ashish Yadav @ Anil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2023BAIL/42599/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Holding that the applicant, though not named in the initial FIR, should be released on bail in a murder case involving circumstantial evidence where a co-accused has already been granted bail and no material suggests tampering.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to six specific conditions regarding attendance, evidence tampering, and trial conduct.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:202705

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42599 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ashish Yadav @ Anil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuvansh Misra,Ram Kesh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Firdos Ahmad

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Firdos Ahmad, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ashish Yadav @ Anil, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 308 of 2023, under Sections 302, 364, 201, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Mehnagar, District Azamgarh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the State submits that he has received instructions for which time was granted to him vide order dated 06.10.2023.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the FIR was lodged on 23.02.2023 against unknown person. It is argued that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report. It is argued that after investigation a final report was submitted in the matter on 12.03.2023. It is further argued that an affidavit was filed by the son of the deceased before the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh implicating five persons as those responsible for the murder of his father. A second FIR has been lodged of the same incident on 15.03.2023. Subsequently during investigation his name has come in the statement of co-accused which is not admissible in evidence. It is argued that there is no direct evidence against the applicant. It is further argued that the present case is circumstantial in nature. It is further argued that co-accused Tehsildar Yadav has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.10.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 42112 of

¶11

2023 (Tahsildar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. He further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 41 of the affidavit and is in jail since 16.07.2023.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused has been granted bail.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report which was lodged on 23.02.2023 in which after investigation, a final report was submitted in the matter. Subsequently the second FIR has been lodged to the same incident in which during investigation the implication of the applicant is on the basis of the statement of co-accused. It appears that the present case is a circumstantial evidence. Co-accused Tehsildar Yadav has been granted bail.

¶14

Looking to 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.

¶15

Let the applicant Ashish Yadav @ Anil , 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 concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during

¶20

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.

¶21

(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 229-A IPC.

¶22

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

¶23

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 and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed .

¶25

Order Date :- 19.10.2023 M. ARIF

¶26

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashish Yadav @ Anil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Yadav @ Anil 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

Chhotu @ Chhotaiya Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar @ Santu Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Aman Khan Vs State of U.P.