Virendra Kumar Yadav Alias Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:639

Court No. - 28

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 419 of 2024

Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Yadav Alias Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Hari Krishna Verma,Paritosh Shukla,Sanjeet Kumar Patel,Sanjeev Verma,Sukh Deo Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anamika Singh,Anand Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as also Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant, and perused record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.0183 of 2023 under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/5/25/27 of Arms Act, PS Amethi district Amethi.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. As per version of the F.I.R., it is apparent that no one had seen the incident. He has submitted that role of conspiracy is assigned in the F.I.R. without any cogent material. He has further submitted that on the basis of confessional statement of the applicant he has been implicated in the case and has been assigned role of firing. He has further submitted that confessional statement has no evidentiary value.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that on 20.07.2023 an application was given by father of the deceased in which he had mentioned that he had seen the incident and he has assigned the role of firing against the applicant.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that this version has been improved for the reason that the father had not lodged the F.I.R. on 18.07.2023 mentioning the fact that he had seen the incident, rather, he had improved the version just to give colour to the case. It has been further submitted that the co-accused Ravish Singh has been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11886 of 2023 vide

¶11

order dated 09.11.2023.

¶12

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that in the confessional statement applicantaccused has admitted the crime, therefore, the bail is liable to be rejected.

¶13

Considering overall the argument that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R.; confessional statement has no evidentiary value; and father has improved the case by giving second application, though when the F.I.R. was lodged, it is not mentioned in the said application that the father of the deceased had seen the incident; co-accused has been granted bail, thus, it is a fit case for bail. The application is accordingly allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Virendra Kumar Yadav alias Raju be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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 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

¶19

liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.

¶20

( Brij Raj Singh, J. )

¶21

Order Date :- 6.1.2025 A.Nigam

¶22

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

Virendra Kumar Yadav Alias Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar Yadav Alias Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ram Vilas Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Beena Devi and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Sudhir Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Amit Mehrotra Alias Titu Mehrotra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ashok Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another