Court No. - 57
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 779 of 2018 Applicant :- Arvind Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiva Kant Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. today, on behalf of the State is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the records.
The applicant is involved in case crime no. 1733 of 2017, under Section 420 IPC, P.S. Bardah, District Azamgarh.
Complainant had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was treated as complaint case and summons were issued to accused persons namely Jhinku Yadav, Arvind Yadav and Govind Yadav and in response to the same, they were arrested and taken into custody and sent in police remand. The allegation in the complaint is to the effect that Jhinku Yadav, who is father of applicant Arvind Yadav and Govind Yadav, mislead the complainant to get the job for his son in police and for that he had to spend Rs. 5 lacs. Complainant paid Rs. 2.5 lacs in cash to Arvind Yadav and Govind Yadav on 26.07.2014, whereafter, a further demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made, and the same was also paid in cash on 12.12.2014. The contention advanced on behalf of the applicant is that there is no proof of any such payment and the fact is that the informant is cousin of Jhinku Yadav and Jhinku Yadav had taken Rs. 50,000/- from complainant to be spent in some contract business, which he could not pay back and resultantly the complaint was lodged on concocted facts. Further attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the applicant towards the order dated 21.11.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45237 of 2017 by which the Jhinku Yadav and Govind Yadav have already been enlarged on bail in the present case. The further argument is that there is no criminal history against the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 05.12.2017.
On contrary, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail, but could not controvert the bail order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court granting bail to co-accused persons.
Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled for bail.
Let the applicant Arvind Yadav involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions as prescribed in the order dated 21.11.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45237 of 2017.
However, applicant has been directed to be enlarged on bail with condition that he shall appear before court concerned in the first week of every month during pendency of criminal case and shall not avoid personal appearance, failing which, lower court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
It is made clear that Identity status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be strictly verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018/IrfanUddin