Allahabad High Court
Vikas Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 10 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84817
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18182 of 2024
Applicant :- Vikas Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anup Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Gautam,Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 722 of 2023, under Sections 457, 380, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant has come up later on. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained on the ground that other offences are of petty in nature and in two cases regarding major offences the applicant has been enlarged on bail by this Court. The said orders have been annexed as Annexure 4 to the affidavit. In all the five cases were foisted on him at the time of arrest. The applicant is ready to cooperate in trial. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.10.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said criminal history of the applicant stands explained. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgment of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Vikas Yadav who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.
(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. 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.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024
Priya
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
