Allowed

Vimlesh @ Raka Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2024/28/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 302 and 336 IPC, the single judge granted bail to the applicant. The court noted the absence of prosecution witnesses, the lack of a clear eye witness, and no criminal history for the applicant as grounds for allowing bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding appearance, conduct, and trial attendance.

Vimlesh @ Raka Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:6673

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vimlesh @ Raka Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Naresh Yadav,Vineet Kumar Chaurasia

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhruvendra Kumar Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Dhruvendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record.

¶9

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

¶10

It is alleged in the FIR that on 03.06.2022 while the brother of the deceased Chainu was talking to the wife of his brother and nephew, the accused persons i.e. the applicant, Kamlesh Yadav, Lalit and Satish Yadav came at about 10:30 am and took the deceased on the pretext of taking bath at Behta Nala. When the deceased did not return after some time, brother of the informant Karamat went towards Behta Nala where he saw that the deceased had been shot in the head and the accused persons were running in orchards here and there and as soon as he reached near the deceased, the deceased had died. In that incident co-accused Satish Yadav also received pellet injury.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the sole witness Karamat in his statement has clearly admitted that when he reached at the place of occurrence, Chainu (deceased) had already died. He was shot in the head. He has not said that he saw any of the accused persons at that time. Version of the FIR narrated by the informant is contrary. After six days of the incident, one Yaduvir Singh has been introduced as eye witness.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.06.2022 without having any criminal history. 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 A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail prayer submitting that on 03.06.2022, recovery of 315 bore country made pistol has been made and confessional statement of Yaduvir Singh has been recorded in which he has stated that the deceased was having illicit relationship with the wife of Vimlesh @ Raka Yadav and due that the applicant has committed this crime.

¶14

On due consideration to the fact that the informant is not the eye witness; according to the statement of Karamat, he is also not the eye witness; as per the statement of the prosecution witnesses specific role of causing injury has not been assigned either by the informant or Karamat; only Vaduvir has assigned the role of firing to the present applicant whose statement has been recorded after six days of the incident without there being any explanation of delay, so also considering the fact that till date not a single prosecution witness has been produced before the trial court; the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.06.2022 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.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant, Vimlesh @ Raka Yadav, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 203/2022, under Sections 302/336/338 IPC, Police Station - Malihabad, District - Lucknow, 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 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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

Order Date :- 18.1.2024 R.C.

¶24

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

Vimlesh @ Raka Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimlesh @ Raka Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home, 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

Similar cases

Maniram Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

Hazrat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Satyam Bajpei Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Rishab Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Radheraman Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Suresh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.