Allowed

Samod Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 May 2023BAIL/8659/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Samod Yadav in a trial regarding Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC on the ground that he has been in custody since January 2019 and the trial is delayed, following the precedent in Paras Ram Vishvoi.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including non-attendance by the applicant would invite proceedings under Section 229-A IPC or other penal provisions if the

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

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8659 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Samod Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bratendra Singh,Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra and Sri Bratendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mithilesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 10.8.2021.

¶7

The new ground which has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant is that while rejecting the first bail application, this Court had directed the trial Court to expedite the trial of the case and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months, but till date trial of the case is not concluded.

¶8

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is next contended that the applicant has no motive to commit the offence in question. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 18.1.2019.

¶9

The Apex Court in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) 3610 of 2020) has observed as under :

¶10

"On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."

¶11

In the aforesaid cases the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial long period then a period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground.

¶12

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has 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. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶14

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation

¶15

and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶16

Let the applicant Samod Yadav involved in Case Crime No.239 of 2018, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chaubiya, District Etawh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶17

(i) 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.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iii) 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.

¶20

(iv) 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.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 3.5.2023 Dev/-

¶24

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

Samod Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samod 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

Vijaypal Vs State of U.P.

Tilak Singh Vs Union of India

Yusuf @ Andha Vs State of U.P.

Munna Mustaq Vs State of U.P.

Shahnazar Vs State of U.P.

Krishn Kumar @ Krishna @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others