Allowed

Surendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2024/424/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a murder case, granting relief on the grounds of parity with a co-accused who had already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed to Surendra Yadav on grounds of parity with a co-accused, conditioned on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties and adhering to conditions regarding evidence tampering and court atte

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11116

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 424 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Surendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Singh Gaur,Anuj Verma,Rahul Agnihotri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.0105 of 2022, under Sections 302, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Subeha, District Barabanki.

¶8

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that an FIR was lodged against four accused persons alleging that one Surendra Yadav made a call to the complainant and had asked to come to the house of Kirsan. He reached there along with his nephew Dinesh. On reaching, he saw, his brother was lying in pool of blood. It is also alleged that all the accused named in the FIR with the common intention had killed the brother of the informant Deepak Yadav by the use of Lathi and Danda. It is argued that in the postmortem report, one head injury has been reported, which is also the cause of death.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that co-accused Reeta has been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12799 of 2022. He submits that general allegation have been levelled on all the accused persons. No specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. Applicant is in custody since 10.06.2022.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer however, does not dispute the fact that role assigned to the applicant is similar to that of co-accused Reeta.

¶11

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.06.2022, ante mortem injuries in the post mortem report, statement of the independent eye witnesses and the fact

¶12

that applicant has no criminal history; the co-accused Reeta has been enlarged on bail as also the fact that applicant seeks parity, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the grounds of parity .

¶14

Let the applicant Surendra Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

Order Date :- 6.2.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶22

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

Surendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra 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

Similar cases

Kishori Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.

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

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

Harikesh @ Matole Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Abu Sahma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajendra Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Lko.