Allowed

Vinay Kant Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024BAIL/9206/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, disposed of a bail application filed in a criminal case involving examination malpractice. The court granted bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Vinay Kant Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58735

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9206 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vinay Kant Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

This application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No. 859 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 6/9 of the Examinations Act, 1982, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow, during trial.

¶8

It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant alleging therein that on 23.12.2023, the examination for the post of Lab Attendant was scheduled to be held. During course of the examination, it was suspected that the applicant namely Vinay Kant Yadav having Roll No. 135501994 is under suspicion and the same may be verified. It is in this context that the invigilator came to the applicant was asked to produce his Aadhar Card. However, the applicant is said to have produced his Pan Card wherein the name was written Vinay Kant Yadav but the photo resembled to one Subodh Tiwari. It is in the aforesaid context that the instant FIR has been lodged.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is argued that if the allegations contained in the FIR are believed as it is, at the most Section 416 IPC would be made out against the applicant. However, in order to aggravate the case, certain sections under Section 467 IPC etc. have been incorporated therein.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. Moreover, neither there is any credible evidence which could establish his complicity in the alleged crime. The applicant has been in jail since 18.07.2024. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

It is also urged that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

It is also submitted that the co-accused namely Vinay Tiwari @ Subodh Tiwari has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by means of order dated 05.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3788 of 2024 and a copy of the bail order has been brought on record as Annexure No.5.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., on the basis of material in the case diary available with him, has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶14

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Vinay Kant Yadav involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶16

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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

¶20

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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 29.8.2024 Rakesh/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinay Kant Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kant Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. 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

Jagdish Prasad and 2 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer and 4 Others

Vinay Singh Vs the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Member and Others

Vijay Bahadur Srivastava Vs Addl. Commissioner Lko and 14 Others

Matloob Hussain Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Manoj Rao and Another vs Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Its Secretary and Others

Wahid Ali and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and 3 Others