Allowed

Amit Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2024CRLA/4362/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against the rejection of bail. The court held that the appellant had established a case for bail by demonstrating parity with a co-accused already released, warranting the setting aside of the lower court's order and enlargement on bail.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed. The impugned bail rejection order set aside. Appellant enlarged on bail subject to specific conditions including attendance at trial dates and framing of charges.

Amit Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:180467

¶2

Court No. - 43

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4362 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Amit Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manvendra Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Samya Lal Pandey,Vidya Kant Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Vidya Kant Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and perused the entire record.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST) (PA) Act, District Bulandshahr in Bail Application No. 3404 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.1126 of 2018 under Sections 364, 302, 201, 404, 411, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶8

It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that similarly situated coaccused namely, Deepak Yadav has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8346 of 2024, copy of which order is annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. It is thus contended that the appellant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also 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 and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose

¶9

upon him. He next submits that appellant is languishing in jail since 06.10.2018 having no criminal history.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant by contending that the innocence of the appellant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the appellant is released on bail he will misuse the liberty of bail, however, could not dispute the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to parity.

¶11

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶12

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) (PA) Act, District Bulandshahr is set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant, Amit Yadav be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.1126 of 2018 under Sections 364, 302, 201, 404, 411, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, with the following conditions:-

¶14

I. The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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.

¶15

II. The appellant 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

III. In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the 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.

¶17

IV. The appellant 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

Identity, status and residence proof of the appellant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.11.2024 S.Ali

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhilesh Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ahmad Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Aqib Manzoor vs State of U.P.

Udaybhan Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Km Arju Alias Jagrati vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakun Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another