Allowed

Madhukar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt Lko

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2024BAIL/10603/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a fourth bail application filed by Madhukar Singh Yadav in a murder case. The court relied on the fact that key prosecution witnesses failed to implicate the applicant and that main shooters had been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and honesty in court proceedings.

Madhukar Singh Yadav vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71121

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10603 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Madhukar Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt Lko

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Akhilendra Pratap Singh,Himanshu Tiwari,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Balram Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

2. The present fourth bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.704 of 2020 under Sections 302,120-B/34 IPC, Police Station Mohanlalganj, District- Lucknow.

¶9

3. This is fourth bail application filed by the applicant. The third bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.09.202 and while rejecting the third bail application, the Court observed that after rejection of second bail application, the fact witness have not been examined and the case as established by the prosecution side is standing on the same footing. After rejection of third bail application, the fact witnesses have been examined,therefore, the fresh cause of action has arisen and the applicant has filed the present fourth bail application.

¶10

It has been submitted by Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant that P.W.-1 Ajay Pandey son of the deceased has been examined by the trial court and

¶11

in his cross-examination, he deposed before the court that the applicant did not contest any election against his father and there is no enmity with his father. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that P.W.1 has not stated any fact which indicates that the applicant was involved in commission of crime. Similarly, P.W.-5 Smt. Sandhya Pandey, wife of the deceased, has also been examined before the trial court and in her cross-examination, she deposed that whatsoever fact was stated by the police,she got recorded the same before police and she had no personal enmity with the applicant. She further deposed that Madhukar Singh Yadav did not contest any election against her husband, the deceased. She further deposed that who killed her husband,she had no knowledge.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the main witness P.W.-7 Krishna Kant Dixit has been declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that two other witnesses, namely, Iqbal and Icchadeep Singh, who are the eye witnesses of the case have not stated anything adverse against the applicant except the fact that they have stated that applicant was seen in the company of the co-accused at earlier occasions.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the applicant is in jail since 03.01.2021. He has also explained the criminal history of the applicant in paras 51 to 61 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

¶14

It has also been stated that main shooters, namely Arun Kumar Yadav @ Chottu and Mulayam Yadav have

¶15

have been granted bail by coordinate Bench this Court vide orders dated 28.09.2022 and 06.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 15592 of 2021 and 455 of 2024 respectively. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused Mulayam Yadav was granted bail after rejection of third bail application of the applicant.

¶16

8. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. though opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that main shooters,namely, Arun Kumar Yadav @ Chottu and Mulayam Yadav have have been granted bail by this Court.

¶17

9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the argument that the co-accused/ main shooters, namely, Arun Kumar Yadav @ Chottu and Mulayam Yadav have have been granted bail by this Court; the argument that P.W.-1 Ajay Pandey, son of the deceased and P.W.-5, Smt. Sandhya Pandey, wife of the deceased have not supported the prosecution case to the extent that the applicant was involved in the commission of crime and the argument that P.W.-7 Krishna Kant Dixit has been declared hostile, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail .

¶18

10. The bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶19

11. Let applicant, namely, Madhukar Singh 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

¶20

following conditions :-

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail

¶26

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.

¶27

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶28

Order Date :- 22.10.2024 dk/

¶29

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

Madhukar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhukar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt 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

Umesh Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Priyanka Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Smt. Kunti Prajapati and Ors. Vs Smt. Nootan Prajapati @ Roshni @ Taaniya and Anr.

Madhukar Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt Lko

Sagar and Ors. Vs State of Up and Anr.

Subhash Chandra Jaiswal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another