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

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2024/3294/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held and granted bail to the arrested applicant in a murder case. The court noted he was not named in the FIR and parents of deceased did not support prosecution. Bail granted with strict conditions including personal presence at framing of charge and recording of Section 313 statement, warning of abuse of process penalties. No opinion expressed on merits of offence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties and strict undertakings regarding attendance on dates for opening of case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49724

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3294 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Manish Chand Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.

¶6

Case has been taken up through video conferencing.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajdeep Singh learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

This is second bail application. First bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.279 of 2023.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.120 of 2022, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not named in the FIR, but later on, in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he has been implicated in the case on the basis of doubt. He further submits that PW-1, mother of the deceased, and PW-2, father of the deceased, have not supported the prosecution case. PW-1, Sharda, mother of the deceased,

¶11

in her statement before the court stated that she did not mention the name of the applicant to police. She also had no knowledge about the incident. She denied the entire version of the prosecution in the cross-examination held on 23.02.2024. Similarly, PW-1, Ram Santosh, father of the deceased, in cross-examination has also not supported the prosecution case and he has stated that on the date of incident, he was present in other village. Statement of PW-3 Kuldeep also does not inspire any confidence that he had seen the incident. The applicant has no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 23.07.2022.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the fact that PWs 1 and 2, who are parents of the deceased, have not supported the prosecution case.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case; after hearing learned counsel for the parties; looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case; the argument that applicant is not named in the FIR; the argument that PWs-1 and 2, father and mother of the deceased, have not supported the prosecution case, I am of the opinion that applicant is entitled for bail.

¶14

Let applicant, Manish Chand Yadav , be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following

¶15

conditions:-

¶16

(i) 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.

¶17

(ii) 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.

¶18

(iii) 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.

¶21

¶22

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 23.7.2024 I.A. Siddiqui

¶24

Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Chand Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Riyaz vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

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

Arvind Verma vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Dharmendra Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Raja Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

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