Allowed

Yadram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2023BAIL/44707/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 302 IPC, the Allahabad High Court allowed the applicant's bail citing weak circumstantial evidence, delay in last seen evidence by three weeks, and the release of a co-accused. Bail was granted on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Yadram released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to standard bail conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:202959

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44707 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Yadram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.K Singh Gaharwar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri R.K. Singh Gaharwar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajeet Kumar Madhesiya, learned brief holder for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 259 of 2022, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Arniya, District- Bulandshahar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against co-accused Gaurav Sharma and Yadram and according to the FIR, Gaurav Sharma is the nephew of the informant and he along with his friend i.e. applicant committed the murder of his father.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that totally on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter only due to reason that he is the friend of the son of the deceased. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record, which can show that applicant alongwith co-accused Gaurav Sharma, committed the murder of the deceased and after three weeks an evidence has been collected the by Investigating Officer to the effect that applicant and deceased were last seen alongwith co-accused Gaurav and merely on the basis of such evidence, at this stage it cannot be said that applicnat committed the murder of the deceased alongwith co-accused Gaurav Sharma.

¶10

He further submitted that bail application of co-accused Gaurav Sharma has been allowed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38980 of 2023 and case of applicant is even at better footing than co-accused Gaurav as admittedly there is no motive of the applicant to commit the murder of the father of co-accused Gaurav.

¶11

He further submitted that although, applicant is having criminal history of one case of theft but his criminal criminal history has

¶12

been explained in the instant bail application and he is in jail since10.11.2022 i.e. for almost a year.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA although, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

Considering the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and only evidence against the applicant is of last seen and even last seen evidence was given by the witnesses after three weeks and applicant is in jail for almost a year and co-accused Gaurav has been released on bail, in my view, applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Yadram be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶21

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

¶22

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.10.2023 KK Patel

¶24

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yadram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadram 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ghanshyam Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Smt Afsana@ Apsana Vs State of U.P.

Shahanshah and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Vs State of U.P.

Tara Devi Vs State of U.P.