Allowed

Monu Yadav Alias Prateek Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Lko.

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2024/1773/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Lucknow granted bail to the accused in a criminal trial case involving offences under Sections 327, 323, 504, and 506 IPC, noting that the injury was simple and prosecution witness retracted key allegations during cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions including no contact with witnesses and sincere cooperation in trial.

Monu Yadav Alias Prateek Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4159

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1773 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Monu Yadav Alias Prateek Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Dubey,Kaushal Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Despite opportunity given no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, however, leaned A.G.A. informs that he is equipped with the complete case diary.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Monu Yadav Alias Prateek Yadav for grant of bail in Case Crime No.054 of 2020, under Sections 327, 323, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Ramjanmbhumi, District Ayodhya, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant, while pressing the bail application, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and, he has not committed any offence, as claimed by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as in the statement of the informant are patently false and absurd and the same could not be believed on the touch-stone of probability. It is further submitted that the informant has sustained only four injuries which are simple in nature and the applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 13.06.2020. Charge-sheet has been filed way back on 14.06.2020 and till now one prosecution witness has been testified, however, in his cross-examination before the trial Court stated that he has not stated in his statement given to the investigating officer that the applicant was pressurizing him to sell illicit liquor and the same appears to have been included in his statement on the pressure applied by the circle officer of the police. It is vehemently submitted that criminal history of thirteen cases has been alleged against the applicant, however, the same has been explained in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 31.01.2023 and in one of such cases the applicant has been acquitted, two cases are pertain to non-

¶10

cognizable reports in which no process has so far been received by the applicant, five cases are pertain to U.P. Control of Goondas Act and the same, by efflux of time, has become infructuous and, in other five cases, the applicant has been granted bail by the trial Courts concerned. Charge-sheet in this case has already been filed and, there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶11

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed a heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the informant/injured has already been testified before the trial Court. Four injuries of simple nature has been sustained by him. During the course of cross-examination, he has declined to have given statement to the effect that the applicant was pressurizing him to sell spurious liquor. Criminal history of 13 cases has been explained. He is languishing in jail in this case since 13.06.2020 and, his presence may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶14

Let the accused/applicant- Monu Yadav Alias Prateek Yadav ,involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not make any contact with the informant/victim or any witness of the instant case directly or indirectly or through any social platform e.g. whatsapp, facebook and Instagram etc. and violation of this condition alone shall be a sufficient ground for the trial Court to cancel the applicant's facility of bail extended by this Court.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.1.2024 MVS/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Monu Yadav Alias Prateek Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu Yadav Alias Prateek Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil 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

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Jaswant Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sudhir Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Chand Babu Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Alpnath Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sukhvinder Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.