Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0431 of 2024 under Sections 109 (1), 110, 115 (2), 352, 351 (3), 324 (4) BNS, P.S. Lalganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶10

As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 08.10.2024 at about 05:00 PM when the applicant alongwith his daughter who is also co-accused allegedly attacked the informant and his family members inflicting serious injuries upon them.

¶11

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him only on account of previous enmity due to immovable property. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation levelled against applicant of having caused any such injury which would be relatable to Section 307 IPC since all the injuries mentioned in the injury report are simple in nature. It is submitted that although denied, the incident clearly attracts the aspect of altercation having occurred on the spur of moment. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 10.10.2024 and his previous criminal history of one case has already been explained.

¶12

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that injuries although indicated to the simple in nature have been inflicted vital parts of the body. It is, however, admitted that single case of previous criminal history has been explained.

¶13

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 :-

¶14

"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."

¶15

"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."

¶16

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 general allegation of having inflicted injuries upon the informant and his family members have been alleged. The aspect of co-relation between in nature of injuries and Section 109 (1) B.N.S. would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. The applicant is under incarceration since 10.10.2024 and his previous criminal history of one case has already been explained.

¶17

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.

¶18

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let applicant- Rakesh 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:-

¶20

(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

¶21

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.

¶22

(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 269 BNS.

¶23

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 209 BNS.

¶24

(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 351 BNSS. 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.

¶25

Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Satish

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Rajlal Kori Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bilkish Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Alok Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Sumit Joshi @ Sunny vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others vs Praveen Singh and Another