Allowed

Shailendra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2023BAIL/55637/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court, describing false implication and lack of convincing evidence, allowed the applicant's bail during trial subject to bonds from personal sureties and strict conditions to ensure appearance and non-tampering.

What did the court decide?

The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties with the imposition of strict conditions.

Shailendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55637 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shailendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Singh,Arurit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manvendra Singh,Ravindra Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State, Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Shailendra Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 162 of 302/34, 147 IPC, registered at P.S.- Kotwali, District- Gorakhpur.

¶7

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. According to the prosecution version the injured was initially hospitalized in B.R.D. medical College on 4.7.2022 but no injury report of injured is available in the case diary. The FIR of the incident has been lodged after the delay of 17 days. Also there is no eye witness account of the alleged incident. The main role of firing is assigned to co-accused Vishal @ Kajan Mishra, whereas no role has been assigned to the applicant in the FIR as well as in the statement of the first informant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.07.2022 having no criminal history.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all 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.

¶10

Let the applicant- Shailendra Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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:-

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

The bail application is allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 23.1.2023

¶20

RPD

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shailendra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhanajay Singh Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shubham Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.

Mangali Prasad Vs State of U.P.