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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4303

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 627 of 2025

Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.542 of 2024, under Sections 309 (6), 317 (2) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Balrampur.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that there is no material evidence against the applicant so as to connect him. He submits that there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 21 of the bail application and the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.11.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that there is no material evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the instant matter; there is no criminal history of the applicant; the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.11.2024; and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of

¶12

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 case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Rahul Yadav involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He 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

(3) 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.; and

¶17

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Ram Murti

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shamshad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home , Lucknow and Another

Brijesh Kumar Awasthi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Daya Nidhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

Tusharkant Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Dhaniram and Another Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Civil Secretariat Lucknow

Kartik Modanwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. to the Deptt. of Home Lko