Allowed

Ajay Singh @ Ajay Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2024BAIL/7764/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC arising from Case Crime No.101 of 2024, P.S. Bijnor, Lucknow. Court noted no previous criminal history, period of custody since June 2024, and undertaking to cooperate with trial; bail granted on conditions without expressing any view on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding non-tampering and attendance at trial.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73350

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7764 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ajay Singh @ Ajay Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ajit Ranjan,Durgendra Kumar Tiwari,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.101 of 2024, under Section 323, 504, 506 & 308 I.P.C., P.S. Bijnor, District Lucknow.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He submits that name of the present applicant has been implicated in the F.I.R. due to anonymity as the applicant and the complainant are of the same village. He added that in fact, no such incident has ever taken place and it seems that the victim himself had taken liquor and he fell down somewhere else and received injuries and by way of lodging instant F.I.R., the false story has been concocted and the present applicant has been implicated while alleging that the applicant has committed the offence. He has also shown other falsity in the prosecution story and submitted that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 19 of the bail application and the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.6.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 19 of

¶11

the bail application; the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.6.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Ajay Singh @ Ajay Singh Yadav involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

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

¶15

(2) 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. He 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;

¶16

(3) 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.; and

¶17

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly

¶20

confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 6.11.2024 Ram Murti

¶22

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

Ajay Singh @ Ajay Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Singh @ Ajay Singh 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

Gautam Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Kuber Tewari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Premwati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Salman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Kanhai Nishad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home