Deepak Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21342

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1629 of 2025

Applicant :- Deepak Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kr. Yadav Warsi,Rati Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 0008 of 2024 under Sections 7, 12, 13 (1) (b) read with Article 13(2) Anti-Corruption Act, P.S. Anti-Corruption, Ayodhya, District Ayodhya.

¶8

As per contents of First Information Report, the applicant was taken into custody on the basis of a trap which was effected on 17.12.2024 in which applicant was caught red handed taking bribe of Rs. 40,000/-.

¶9

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him at the behest of complainant Balwant Yadav. It is submitted that as per allegations levelled, on an application by the said complainant with regard to demarcation of land which was recorded in the name of his mother Meena Devi, applicant reportedly demanded the said bribe.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant has drawn attention to the report dated 13.12.2024 submitted by him with regard to demarcation of the said property pertaining to Gata No. 281 minjumla in the village in question with the submission that demarcation was refused on the ground that it was a joint holding on which demarcation was not possible since no partition had been effected. He has also drawn attention to the fact that the said report submitted by him has been taken cognizance of by Naib-Tehsildar and SDM on 20.12.2024 itself and therefore there was no occasion for applicant to have demanded such bribe once report had already been submitted prior to the trap being effected. It is also submitted that even

¶11

otherwise there is no allegation or any money having been recovered from the applicant with such recovery having been shown from co-accused Shamsher.

¶12

Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the FIR to submit that alleged recovery even otherwise admittedly has taken place at some farm house with no independent witnesses of the farm house.

¶13

Learned counsel has therefore raised questions with regard to the allegations levelled in the FIR. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 18.12.2024 with only charge-sheet having been submitted and there is no hope for early conclusion of trial since as per charge-sheet there are 20 prosecution witnesses.

¶14

Learned AGA has opposed bail application with the submission that contents of FIR clearly indicate the aspect that a trap team cought the applicant red handed while in the midst of accepting bribe from the complainant. It is, however, admitted that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and there are 20 prosecution witnesses. The counter affidavit also does not advert to the aspect of a report having already been submitted by the applicant on 13.12.2024 itself pertaining to demarcation of the property.

¶15

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶16

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶17

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶18

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that from the record that with regard to application for demarcation of Gata No. 281

¶19

minjumla, the applicant being a Lekhpal concerned had submitted his report on 13.12.2024, cognizance of which was also taken on 20.12.2024 but the trap is said to have been effected on 17.12.2024. There does not appear to be any recovery from the person of applicant and there also does not appear to be any independent witnesses from the farm house where the alleged recovery has taken place. Applicant is under incarceration since 18.07.2024 with 20 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined. There does not appear to be any hope of early conclusion of trial.

¶20

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, 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 fit case of bail.

¶21

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let applicant- Deepak Yadav involved in the aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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 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.

¶26

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)

¶27

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.

¶28

Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Satish

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Shyamta Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Saurabh Kumar @ Sajjan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Adarsh Singh @ Yashu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Harjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Arpit Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sharukh Mansuri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another