Allowed

Ashok Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2023BAIL/54329/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Ashok Yadav, an under-trial accused in a rape case. Invoking Article 21 due to jail overcrowding and unfair investigation, the court granted bail despite the serious nature of the charges, subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding attendance, no tampering with witnesses, and cooperation in trial.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148164

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54329 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Ashok Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

The applicant was initially implicated in this case for committing the offence of rape, unlawful confinement, conspiracy and threatening of victim who is major.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that initially the applicant was implicated in the FIR but no charge sheet was submitted against him and he was exonerated by the investigating officer. Main role was assigned to co-accused, Gajendra @ Kallu, who has been granted bail. The applicant has been summoned for facing trial in this case under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial. The applicant is in jail since 01.11.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶9

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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.

¶11

Let the applicant, Ashok Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 126 of 2011, under Sections- 376, 342, 120-B, 506 IPC, Police Station- Dibiyapur, District- Auraiya, 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.

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶17

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

¶18

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Order Date :- 25.7.2023 Rohit

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok 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

Virendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Daulat Ram Vs State of U.P.

Shaillendra@Shailend Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anand Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nakul Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakir Vs State of U.P.