Disposed

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

Allahabad HC26 Mar 2025CRLA/3837/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the appellant convicted under Sections 489B, 489-C, 120-B, and 420 IPC. The court relied on the appellant's prior bail status, lack of criminal history, parity with a co-accused, and the long pendency of the appeal. The fine realization was stayed partially, and the appeal was to be argued as listed.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties; half fine stayed, half to be deposited within one month of release.

Balram Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3837 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Balram Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Anuj Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Order on Crl. Misc. Application No. 1 of 2024

¶6

Heard Sri Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicantappellant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P.

¶7

The applicant-appellant has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2024, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2015 - State Vs. Balram Yadav, arising out of Case Crime No. 193 of 2015, under Sections 489B, 489-C, 120-B and 420 I.P.C., Police Station - Cantt., District - Ayodhya. Under Section 489-B IPC, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to seven years imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-, under Section 489-C IPC for four years imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/-, alongwith default stipulations.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicantappellant that he was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty of bail. It is further submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that recovery is made from a public place without there being any independent witness. The judgment passed by the Court below is perverse and contrary to record. There is material contradiction in the testimony of the prosecution witness. The prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In a cursory manner, the trial Court has convicted the appellant. The appellant has no previous criminal antecedents. It is lastly submitted that coaccused of the case namely Phool Chandra Yadav has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by means of order dated 07.01.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2025 and hence present applicant may also be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand has opposed the application for bail but does not dispute the above facts as narrated by the counsel for the applicant-

¶10

appellant.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

On considering the entire aspects of the matter, including the fact that the appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty of bail, the appellant has no criminal history, the manner in which recovery has been made, and the fact that co-accused Phool Chandra Yadav has already been enlarged on bail coupled with the fact that appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, ground for bail is made out.

¶13

Let, the applicant-appellant Balram Yadav , convicted in Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2015 - State Vs. Balram Yadav, arising out of Case Crime No. 193 of 2015, under Sections 489B, 489-C, 120-B and 420 I.P.C., Police Station - Cantt., District - Ayodhya, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned.

¶14

Realisation of half of the fine is stayed and the remaining half shall be deposited by the applicant-appellant within one month after his release.

¶15

It is made clear that the bail is being granted to the applicant on the condition that the counsel for the appellant shall appear to argue the appeal as and when the appeal is listed. In case of default of the counsel and non-payment of fine as directed above, the bail is likely to be cancelled.

¶16

It is further made clear that in case the applicant/appellant commits any offence while on bail, the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶17

The Magistrate/Court concerned shall forward copy of the bail bonds as well as list of sureties, to this Court for keeping the same on record.

¶18

The present bail application stands disposed of .

¶19

Order Date :- 26.3.2025 A. Verma

¶20

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Prasad Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Bharti and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Mobin Ali and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Lko. and Another

Sunil Kumar Gautam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Rohit Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vijay Kumar Yadav @ Doodhnath Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.