Sujeet Yadav vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56817

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8993 of 2025

Applicant :- Sujeet Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hirdesh Kumar Yadav,Sushma Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶6

The instant bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.25 of 2025 registered under Section 317(3) BNS, Police Station Rabertsganj, District Sonbhadra, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that applicant is innocent person and he is now falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant was not named in the FIR and he was connected with the instant case crime at the event of the arrest by the police, on the information of informer received by the police. It is further submitted that from the possession of applicant the alleged recovery of Rs.6050/- was made by the police on the arrest of the applicant. It is further submitted that the said recovery was made without following procedure under the statute. There are previous criminal history of two cases which have been explained in paragraph nos.18 and 19 of the paper book. It is vehemently submitted that there is no identification parade has been conducted and he has not been identified by any independent witness. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.01.2025. It is also apprise the Court that the co-accused, namely, Aman Yadav has already been

¶8

enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10981 of 2025. It is further submitted that the present applicant and the co-accused-Aman Yadav who has already been enlarged on bail, are on same footing. He next submitted that, on instruction, he shall abide all terms and conditions imposed by the Court while granting the bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, in advance notice, accepted notice and vehemently opposed the instant bail application and submitted that one eye witness, namely, Shiv Mangal has identified the present applicant and as per the CDR report the presence of the accused on spot was not doubtful. Learned AGA further submitted that the Scorpio Car which was used in the commission of crime has been recovered by the police is registered in the name of the present accused. He further submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances, he is failed to make out any case for granting bail.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the contents made in the FIR as well as the statement of the eye witness as well as the CDR report and the case diary placed before the Court by the learned AGA.

¶11

As per the CDR report and statement of the eye witness, the facts which has been stated by learned counsel appearing on behalf of State are find correct but the learned AGA has not dispute the fact that the co-accused, namely, Aman Yadav has already been enlarged on bail despite the police has recovered the money from the co-accused Aman Yadav. There are also one criminal history of Aman Yadav. The investigation is still going on and has yet not been completed.

¶12

Taking into consideration of the undertaken given by the applicant that he shall abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the Court as well as nature of the offence, period of languishing in jail and other material on record without without expressing the merit of the case, I am satisfied that the applicant has been made out case for granting bail.

¶13

The instant bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant - Sujeet Yadav, who is involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

(i). The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 BNSS. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate of 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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 17.4.2025 I.A.Siddiqui

¶19

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sujeet Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujeet 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahul Yadav Alias Alok Yadav vs State of U.P.

Sazid vs State of U.P.

Dilip vs State of U.P.

Vipin Ben Vanshi @ Vipul vs State of U.P.

Suman Yadav vs State of U.P.

Rahul Yadav Alias Alok Yadav vs State of U.P.