Allowed

Pushpendra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2023BAIL/43614/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed where the High Court, without commenting on merits, observed that the applicant was falsely implicated, the FIR was lodged with delay, no specific role was assigned, and parity existed with co-accused granted bail. The applicant was released on a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in a like amount, subject to appearing on fixed dates and not tampering with evidence.

Pushpendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:203384

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43614 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pushpendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Som Veer Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Devesh Kumar Giri holding brief of Sri Som Veer, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.369 of 2023, under Sections 307, 504, 34 IPC, Police Station Hariparwat, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that there is delay in lodging the FIR as the alleged incident has occurred on 01/02.08.2023 and the FIR has been lodged on 09.08.2023 for which no plausible explanation has been given by the informant. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is further contended that the co-accused persons Akshya Tomar and Neeraj Yadav having similar role have been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41242 of 2023 vide order dated 22.09.2023 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38926 of 2023 vide order dated 09.10.2023, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraphs-15 to 18. There is no likelihood of his abscondence or tampering with the evidence. He is in jail since 10.08.2023. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having regard to the facts, circumstances and the submissions made but without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is of opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant - Pushpendra Yadav , involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶12

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶13

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶14

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 19.10.2023 Shahroz

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pushpendra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpendra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Patel Vs State of U.P.

Khalid and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of Up through principle secretary (home)

Satyam Tiwari @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Ibran Alias Daud Alias Rinku Vs State of U.P.