Allowed

Alok Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2024CRLA/1114/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the appellant in a criminal appeal challenging conviction under Sections 304 and 504 IPC. The court noted the lack of criminal history and reasonable prospect of appeal success before granting bail while directing deposit of the fine.

What did the court decide?

Appellant to be released on bail executing personal bond and two sureties; fine to be deposited within two months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1114 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Alok Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Ajey Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

( Order in Appeal )

¶6

Sri Vishal Kumar Yadav, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record.

¶7

Let the name of Sri Vishal Kumar Yadav, be printed in the cause-list, when this case is next listed.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant Sri Ajey Singh as well as Sri Vishal Kumar Yadav for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

Admit. Summon the trial court record.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. may file counter affidavit within 3 weeks. 1 week thereafter shall be available to the appellant for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶11

List in due course.

¶12

( Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1/2024 )

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant Sri Ajey Singh as well as Sri Vishal Kumar Yadav for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶14

The appellant/ applicant, Alok Kumar Yadav, seeks bail in this appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.3.2024 passed by the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shrawasti, in Sessions Trial No. 100019 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 1088 of 2012, Police Station Malhipur, District Shrawasti, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 304 and 504, I.P.C.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.

¶16

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that maximum period of sentence awarded to the appellant for

¶17

offence under Section 304, I.P.C. is 8 year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default stipulation.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant was also on bail during course of trial which was never misused by him. He also submits that the appellant has no criminal history. These facts have been stated in paragraphs 21 and 34 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It has been further submitted that the appellant/ applicant is in jail since 21.3.2024, and there is no likelihood of this appeal to be heard at an early date or in near future in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the court.

¶19

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required.

¶20

Counsel has attempted to point out several other inherent infirmities in the evidence and also the elements of improbability contained therein and it has been argued that with such infirmities on record there is a reasonable prospect of this appeal being allowed after final hearing takes place.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶22

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early hearing and conclusion of appeal, this Court is of the view that the appellant may be enlarged on bail. The bail-application is accordingly allowed .

¶23

Let the appellant/ applicant, Alok Kumar Yadav S/o Magare, convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 100019 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 1088 of 2012, Police Station Malhipur, District Shrawasti, under Sections 304 and 504, I.P.C., be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶24

It is made clear that fine is not stayed and the same be deposited by the appellant within two months after he is enlarged on bail.

¶25

On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.

¶26

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶27

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶28

( Shamim Ahmed, J. )

¶29

Order Date :- 2.4.2024 A.Nigam

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Alok Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Similar cases

Ashish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Nirankar Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Akbar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Swayam Prakash Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

Divya Srivastava and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Israr Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.