Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2024BAIL/1674/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to Kuldeep Yadav in a criminal case involving kidnapping, cheating, and conspiracy. The court observed that the disputed property was returned via a subsequent sale-deed, indicating no intent to retain wrongful gain. The applicant, having no prior record and languishing in jail since a fortnight, was released on a personal bond with two sureties subject to standard cond

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to not tampering with witnesses, cooperating in trial, and refraining from further criminal activity.

Kuldeep Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13429

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1674 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kuldeep Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including upto date case diary.

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Kuldeep Yadav for grant of bail in Case Crime No.1078 of 2023, under Sections 364, 506, 420 and 120-B IPC lodged at Police Station Deva, District Barabanki, 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 and the allegations against the applicant, so far as the FIR and the statement of the victim are concerned, are to the tune that the applicant and two other co-accused persons, namely, Mohammad Jabir and Dayaram alias Guddu had taken Rs. 20,000/- from co-accusedPappu in order to abduct/kidnap the victim and in pursuance of the same, the victim was abducted and was taken to fatehpur tehsil and, under the influence of liquor, in highly intoxicated state of mind, a sale-deed has been executed in favour of Munnidevi.

¶10

Highlighting the above facts, it is vehemently submitted that it is admitted to the victim that he had executed the sale-deed in favour of Munnidevi and copy of the sale-deed place on record as Annexure-4 to the bail application would manifestly reveal that the same has been done by accepting the consideration and a registered document could not be ignored. It is further submitted that when a dispute had arisen between the parties, the property which was purchased by Munnidevi was returned by executing another sale-deed of date 26.12.2023, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure-5 to the bail application.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that since the property which was purchased through earlier sale-deed has been returned by executing the second sale-deed, there is no element of wrongful gain or wrongful loss, moreover, the earlier sale-deed executed by victim in favour of

¶12

Munnidevi was not void ab initio document, rather the same was voidable and, it could only be cancelled through the intervention of civil court.

¶13

It is next submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 23.12.2023. He is not having any previous criminal history and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Considering the fact that the property which was purchased by coaccused- Munnidevi from victim- Jogendra Kumar through a registered sale-deed is shown to have been returned by executing the second sale-deed by Munnidevi in favour of the victim- Jogendra Kumar and also that the applicant is not having any criminal history and he is detained in prison in this case since 23.12.2023, a case of bail is made out in favour of the applicant.

¶16

9 In result, the instant bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶17

Let the accused/applicant- Kuldeep 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 on the merits of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 15.2.2024 MVS/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep 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

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

Arun Kumar Singh and Another Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Dhiraj Bahadur Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Vijay Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S/Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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