Allowed

Sandeep Yadav @ Sandeep Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2024/4038/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application filed by Sandeep Yadav accused of attempted murder, affray and conspiracy. Applicant submitted he was in jail during the alleged crime. Court viewed facts favorably and granted bail without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Sandeep Yadav released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding trial attendance.

Sandeep Yadav @ Sandeep Kumar Yadav Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29279

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4038 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Yadav @ Sandeep Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Riyaz Ahmad,Arun Sinha,Hemant Kumar Pandey,Osama Syed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nadeem Murtaza,Sudhanshu S. Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant as well the learned A.G.A. for the State. Sri Nadeem Murtaza and Shri Sudhanshu Shekhar Tripathi, learned counsel have filed vakalatnama on behalf of the informant which is taken on record.

¶7

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of Case Crime No. 216 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Bijnaur, District Lucknow.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report. As per the version of the First Information Report, it has been mentioned by the complainant that on 08.09.2023 at around 05:45 PM in the evening, at the instance of Sumit Yadav who had called from the mobile of Manoj Yadav, the complainant was called for a meeting behind the Tehsil premises in Sarojini Nagar. It is alleged that at the given place, the co-accused Sumit Yadav, his uncle Vinod Yadav were already waiting for the complainant and as soon as the complainant reached there, the above named co-accused along with two other unknown persons started firing with fire arms and two bullets hit the complainant, as the complainant ducked, the other co-accused Vishambhar also shot at the complainant and the complainant had to take the shelter in a house in the neighborhood.

¶9

It is urged that the applicant has been falsely implicated as he was not named in the FIR. It is only in the statement of the complainant that he improved his story but nevertheless, he did not name the applicant. He did not ascribe any role of firing to the applicant. As per the statement of the injured Kundan Singh, it would indicate that he has stated that the applicant was chasing the complainant by car along with the other co-accused

¶10

persons. What is relevant to notice is the fact that on the alleged date of incident i.e. 08.09.2023, the present applicant was in Jail, thus, the presence of the applicant is completely false and it indicates that the statement given by the injured is not worthy of reliance.

¶11

It has further been pointed out that even upon medical examination, no bullet injury was found on the person of Kundan Singh Yadav. Even while the Investigating Officer went to the site, he could not find any blood or empty cartridges and this clearly indicates that the occurrence was manufactured.

¶12

It is also pointed out that later once the complainant and the injured realized that they have given an incorrect statement regarding the presence of the applicant who was already in Jail, they gave a supplementary statement wherein they made a vague allegation that the applicant had conspired with the other co-accused to rope him in terms of 120-B Cr.P.C.

¶13

It has further been submitted that the applicant has criminal history which has been explained in paragraph 38 and in all the said cases either the final report has been submitted or the applicant has been enlarged on bail and the applicant has been in Jail since 08.11.2023.

¶14

Sri Nadeem Murtaza and the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts that the presence of the applicant on the given date of the incident did not inspire much confidence.

¶15

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant Sandeep Yadav @ Sandeep Kumar Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 216 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Bijnaur, District Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶17

At the time of executing required sureties the following

¶18

conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 10.4.2024 Asheesh

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Yadav @ Sandeep Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Yadav @ Sandeep Kumar 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

Harivansh Kumar @ Harivansh Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

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

Dheeraj Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anand Singh @ Ankur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.