Allowed

Ankur Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2023BAIL/50406/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail to the applicant in a criminal trial pending before a lower court. The decision was based on parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties; conditions include appearing on trial court dates and not tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:228155

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50406 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ankur Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 294 of 2022, U/S 148, 149, 307 IPC, Police Station Kerakat, District Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His case is at a better footing than that of the co-accused person person, Gulab Pal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 9.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14665 of 2023. The applicant is languishing in jail since 9.8.2023 having criminal history which stands explained in paragraph 13 of the affidavit annexed with the bail application. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is at a better footing than that of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him .

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶11

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of parity.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Ankur Yadav who is involved in aforementioned case crime number 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶14

(ii) 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.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶16

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶17

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶18

Order Date :- 2.12.2023 Shalini

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankur Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dashrath Bharti Vs State of U.P.

Geeta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satyaram Vs State of U.P.

Amir Vs State of U.P.