Rahul Yadav vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76419

Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11259 of 2025

Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused in S.C. No. 540 of 2022 (State v. Kapil and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 378/2020, under Sections 302, 34 IPC, Police Station - Daurala, District- Meerut with the prayer to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail.

¶8

The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.01.2024, which is reproduced as under :-

¶9

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶10

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 378/2020, under Section 302/34 IPC, police station Daurala, District Meerut with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶11

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicantaccused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It is not the case of prosecution that applicant has called the deceased for meeting and in fact it was co-accused Ajeet, who has called the deceased. No specific role of firing has been assigned to the applicant. In the first information report, it was alleged that accused persons have fired bullets at the deceased. It was further submitted that applicant has absolutely no motive to commit murder of deceased. Referring to the supplementary statement of informant, it was pointed out that in fact it was co-accused Ajeet, who was blackmailing the deceased regarding photograph of some girl. The alleged recovery of mark-sheet of applicant shown from the

¶12

spot of incident is doubtful and even otherwise the same cannot be said as incriminating and it cannot be believed that applicant might have gone there with his mark-sheet or he would have left his mark-sheet there. There is no independent witness of alleged recovery. No weapon has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It was further submitted that applicant is in jail since 13.10.2020 but not a single witness has been examined so far. Criminal history of eight cases was shown against the applicant but the same has duly been explained in the supplementary affidavit and he has been granted bail in all the said eight cases. Lastly, it was submitted that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in the first information report. There is eyewitness account of witness Sudhansu to the effect that applicant and coaccused have fired bullets at the deceased. The deceased has sustained as many as five bullet injuries. The statements of informant and other material witnesses are yet to be recorded before the trial court. It was submitted that applicant has criminal history of eight cases, including a murder case, and thus, in case applicant is granted bail, he may threaten the witnesses and tamper with the evidence.

¶14

5. After considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, criminal history of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, no case for grant of bail is made out.

¶15

6. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant Rahul Yadav is rejected .

¶16

7. However, keeping in view the period of detention of the applicant, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to decide the same expeditiously, as early as possible.

¶17

8. A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned court below for necessary compliance."

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant has absolutely no motive to commit the murder of deceased or to cause his death. As per prosecution version, the dispute was between co-accused Ajeet and deceased regarding some girl and applicant has no concern with that dispute. No weapon has been recovered from the possession of applicant. No

¶19

specific role has been assigned to applicant. It was submitted that it was a case of hit and run and actually no one has seen the incident. The statement of alleged witness Sudhanshu is not reliable. It is further submitted that first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.01.2024 and applicant has already undergone detention of more than four and a half years and during trial only one witness has been examined so far. Thus, trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that case of applicant is distinguished from co-accused persons. Though, criminal history of eight cases was shown against the applicant but the same has duly been explained and the criminal history pertains to only one police station. Referring to facts of the matter and period of detention, it was submitted that the applicant may be released on bail and that in case the applicant is granted bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during trial.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and that there is evidence that applicant & co-accused persons have committed murder of deceased by firing bullets.

¶21

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts, particularly the fact that applicant is in jail since 13.10.2020 and during trial only one witness has been examined so far, without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant-accused - Rahul Yadav, involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two

¶23

sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶24

(i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶25

(ii) The applicant-accused shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶26

(iii) The applicant-accused shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶27

(iv) The applicant-accused shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶28

(v) The applicant-accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant-accused in accordance with law.

¶30

Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Rama Kant

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramraheesh and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh Sharma vs State of U.P.

Raj Narayan vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanu and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Janak Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Asharph @ Asrat vs State of U.P. and Another