Allowed

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

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2024BAIL/1181/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), upon bail application by Vipin Yadav for alleged theft, allowed the relief. The court observed the stolen mobile was recovered from a co-accused, the applicant had no prior record, and guilt was not established. Bail was granted on personal bond with sureties subject to standard conditions against tampering and misuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions against tampering with witnesses and re-offending.

Vipin Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9602

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1181 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vipin Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar,Shivam Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary of the case and the charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶7

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

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Vipin Yadav for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 279 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C., Police Station- Sammanpur, DistrictAmbedkar Nagar, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶10

It is further submitted that the F.I.R. of the instant case has been lodged by the complainant on 08.11.2023 alleging therein that her mobile phone was kept at a 'Charpai' outside her house and the same has been stolen by three unknown persons. However, on 09.11.2023, the applicant is shown to have been arrested with other co-accused persons, however, the mobile phone in question is shown to have been recovered from the possession of co-accused Neeraj Lona and from the applicant, only one mobile phone is shown to have been recovered.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that the applicant has unnecessarily be implicated in the case, as admittedly, the mobile phone pertaining to the instant case has been recovered from the possession of co-accused Neeraj Lona. The applicant, from before the involvement in the instant case, was not having any criminal antecedent and all the five cases have been slapped

¶12

against him with the arrest of the applicant in the instant case. However, in two of such cases, he has been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 25.01.2024 and 20.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 924 of 2024 and 1042 of 2024, respectively.

¶13

It is next submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 09.11.2023. Charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the mobile phone, which is shown to have been stolen, has not been recovered from the applicant and with the arrest of the applicant in the instant case, five more cases are shown to have been slapped against him and from before the lodging of the F.I.R., he was not having any criminal antecedent. Charge-sheet in this case has already been filed. Applicant is in jail in this case since 09.11.2023. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶16

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. Thus, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the accused/applicant- Vipin Yadav involved in abovementioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

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

¶22

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 1.2.2024

¶25

Praveen

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin 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

Jitendra Kumar @ Jatin vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ram Adhar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shubham Bhargav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Shoeb Iqbal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Rahul Singh @ Rahul Somvanshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Confidential Lko. and Another