Allowed

Karamraj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024/10691/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) granted bail to the applicant accused of offences under Sections 304, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC. The court observed that general allegations were levelled against all co-accused without specific roles assigned, no recovery was affected, and the applicant has no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each under specified conditions.

Karamraj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72967

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10691 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Karamraj Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla,Aman Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Pratap Singh,Virendra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA and short counter affidavit filed by the informant are taken on record.

¶7

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State; Shri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶8

3. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.95 of 2024, under Section 304, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Baldirai, District Sultanpur.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that one of the coaccused Sampati Lal was enlarged on bail. He further argues that the applicant is not claiming parity with the said co-accused as he was of 65 years of age, however, it is argued that general allegations were levelled in the FIR against all the co-accused; no specific role was assigned to any of the co-accused, including the applicant and no recovery was affected from the applicant.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the informant draws my attention to some video to impress that the name of the applicant was specifically taken by the deceased, however, the same is not a part of the case diary.

¶11

6. A perusal of the case diary reveals that there is no specific assertion against the applicant, the applicant has no criminal history, no recovery has been affected from the applicant and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant, if enlarged on bail at this stage, can adversely affect the trial, as such, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶12

7. Let the applicant Karamraj Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with

¶13

two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶15

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶16

(c) 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.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.11.2024

¶18

nishant

¶19

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Karamraj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karamraj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prasidh Narayan vs Sri. Prashant Singh, Nayab Tehsildar, Jagdhishpur, Tehsil Musafirkhana, Amethi

Archana Soni @ Ramkali vs Raju Soni @ Chandra Kumar

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Zahir Ahmad Vs IV Th Additional District Judge Faizabad

A K Multimedia Thru. Proprietor Mohd. Akram Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner, State Good and Service Tax, Lko. and 2 Others

Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.