Allowed

Santosh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2024/2004/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application for the applicant, Santosh Yadav, primarily on the ground of parity established when a co-accused was enlarged on bail. The court noted the applicant's incarceration for over 3.5 years, lack of criminal antecedents, and the reliance of evidence primarily on testimony, leading to the conclusion that the case does not require the applicant's contin

What did the court decide?

Applications allows; applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties on conditions regarding tampering, intimidation, presence in trial, and adulteration of evidence.

Santosh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16752

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2004 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Santosh Yadav

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma,Ashish David Rao,Shakti Kumar Verma,Syed Mohammad Haider Rizv Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This is second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 23.03.2022 by the coordinate Bench of this Court passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 2658 of 2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Snjay Gautam @ Salik Ram who was assigned similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 2657/2021. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused.

¶11

It has been further submitted that the case is of circumstantial evidence. There is not even a last seen evidence. Five witnesses of fact have been examined. There is no chance of tampering the evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.08.2020 without having any criminal antecedent.

¶12

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application, however, they could not dispute the fact that five witnesses of fact have been examined.

¶14

On due consideration to the fact that co-accused Snjay Gautam who was assigned the similar role has been enlarged on bail; the applicant has already incarcerated more than 3 years and 6 months; five fact witnesses have been examined; there is no chance of tampering the evidence; the case is of circumstantial evidence, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.08.2020 without having any criminal antecedent 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 on the ground of parity.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant, Santosh Yadav, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 396/2020, under Sections 302/201/376DA IPC, Section 5(g)/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Isanagar, District - Lakhimpur Kheri, 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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

¶21

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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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 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.

¶24

Order Date :- 23.2.2024

¶25

R.C.

¶26

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

Santosh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Smt. Gudiya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home, Civil Sectt, Lko.

Mukesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Ramprasad Alias Balla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. U.P. Lko.

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

Rajwati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

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