Allowed

Santosh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. Lko.

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2024/1069/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed by Santosh Yadav, who was already in jail, on grounds of parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail in a related matter. The order imposed standard conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties. Conditions imposed to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure presence in court.

Santosh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29861

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1069 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Santosh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- R.B.S. Rathaur,Akhil Pratap Singh,Sachin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri R.B.S. Rathaur, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is alleged in the first information report that Devrani of the informant along with her daughter Suhani Yadav, aged about 10 years was going from her home to Jaichandpur market on 4.5.2023 at about 4.30p.m. and near the canal on a pacca road in front of Arhar field, two unknown persons riding on a black motorcycle who were coming from Jaichandpur asked pathway of Shuklan Ka Purwa which she told and all of a sudden, the pillion rider attacked on her.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during treatment, the injured died. In the post mortem, there are six ante mortem injuries. From perusal of the first information report, it is evident that Suhani, 10 years old girl of the deceased was the sole eye witness. The investigating officer has not recorded the statement of the only eye witness in this case. Nothing has been recovered from the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 08.05.2023. He further submits that co-accused Prakash Singh alias Rinku who was assigned the similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10639 of 2023. Applicant seeks parity with the bail order of aforesaid co-accused.

¶10

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged

¶11

on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail however, does not dispute that its a case of parity.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, nothing has been recovered from the applicant, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as also the fact that applicant seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused Prakash Singh alias Rinku and the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Santosh Yadav involved in Case Crime No.0083/2023 under sections 302, 120-B I.P.C. and 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Sangramgarh, district Pratapgarh 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

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

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

(v) 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.

¶20

(vi) 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

¶21

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.

¶22

8.The application is allowed on the grounds of parity accordingly.

¶23

Order Date :- 15.4.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Jumman and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mukesh Jain Alias Baua Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Gobind Chandra Patra (as in the Fir ) (Gobind Chandra Patra as in the Adhar ) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Saurav Jaiswal @ Saurabh Jaiswal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Vimal Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others