Allowed

Kanhaiyalal Yadav @ Kanhiya Lal v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2024BAIL/1737/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application No. 1737 of 2024, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench granted bail to Kanhaiyalal Yadav charged under Sections 307/34 IPC and Arms Act. The court noted absence of medical report confirming gun-shot injury to police constable and noted co-accused bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence, cooperate in trial, and refrain from criminal activities.

Kanhaiyalal Yadav @ Kanhiya Lal vs State of U.P Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13965

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1737 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kanhaiyalal Yadav @ Kanhiya Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arti Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Arti Shukla, learned counsel for the accusedapplicant, 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. He files personal affidavit of Mr. Vidhan Chand Yadav, SubInspector, posted at Police Station Munshiganj, District Amethi in compliance of order dated 06.02.2024 passed by this Court, the same is taken on record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Kanhaiyalal Yadav @ Kanhiya Lal for grant of bail in Case Crime No. 0002 of 2024, under Sections 307/34 IPC read with Sections 3/5/25(2) Arms Act lodged at Police Station Munshiganj, District Amethi, 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. The injury which is shown to have been sustained by a police constable is of simple nature and cannot be attributed to any firearm. It is further submitted that it is the applicant himself who has sustained firearm injuries in the instant case which itself demonstrates that the case against the applicant is false.

¶10

It is further submitted that the manner in which the instant incident is shown to have occurred could not be believed and despite there was opportunity/occasion/time available to the police party, no serious effort has been made to procure independent public witness, while the incident is shown to have occurred within territorial jurisdiction of many police stations and was a continuing offence. It is submitted that Rs. 8,800/-,

¶11

country made pistol .12 bore and live and empty cartridges are shown to have been recovered from his possession which may not be connected with any crime and even if the story of the prosecution is taken on its face, the story of police of firing in self-defence could not be believed. Identically placed coaccused Deepak Gupta @ Ravi Kumar Gupta has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.2.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1367 of 2024.

¶12

It is next submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 05.01.2024. Charge sheet in this case has already been filed 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.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that by gun-shot firing made by the accused persons one of the police constables has got injuries and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that police constable (Manish Kumar Pal alias Manish Kumar) is shown to have injured in the instant case, however, no medical report of the police constable is available and description of injuries, as has been recorded by the investigating officer of the case, the nature of injuries is shown as simple and it has not been mentioned therein that the same has been caused by gun-shot-fire. Applicant has sustained two firearms injuries to which the police party is claiming to have been sustained in cross-firing made by the police party in self-defence. Criminal history of the applicant of 15 cases has been explained in para-12 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 05.01.2024. Identically placed co-accused Deepak Gupta @ Ravi Kumar Gupta has been granted bail by this Court. Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the facility of bail may be extended in favour of the applicant.

¶15

In result, this bail application of the applicant- Deepak Gupta alias Ravi Kumar Gupta is allowed .

¶16

Let the accused/applicant- Kanhaiyalal Yadav @ Kanhiya Lal involved in above-mentioned 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

The investigating officer of this case, who is present, need not to appear again in this case as the instant bail application has been finally disposed of.

¶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 :- 16.2.2024 Shravan/Praveen

¶25

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

Kanhaiyalal Yadav @ Kanhiya Lal v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiyalal Yadav @ Kanhiya Lal v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. 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

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.

Gajraj Kunwar Jain vs Govt. of India Thru. Assistant Director , Directorate of Enforcement Allahabad

Mohit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Gunjan Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow