1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Chandu @ Chandrapal Yadav vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 January, 2019


Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39723 of 2018 Applicant :- Chandu @ Chandrapal Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ray Sahab Yadav,Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Prakash
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
Heard Sri Gaurav Kakakar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Om Prakash, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and also perused the record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and he has committed no offence. It is next contended that the injuries are not grievous in nature and there is no supplementary medical report to indicate that any internal damage was caused to the injured. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The FIR is unduly delayed by16 hours for which no plausible plantation has been given by the prosecution. The injury was on non-vital part of the body of the injured and the injured was admitted in the hospital on 1.9.2018 and was discharged on the same day. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 4.9.2018. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment, and also considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Chandu @ Chandrapal Yadav involved in Case Crime No.284 of 2018, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C.,Police StationBabina, District Jhansi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant 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.
(iii) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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. 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 IA
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Chandu @ Chandrapal Yadav vs State Of U P


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

30 January, 2019
  • Vivek Kumar Singh
  • Ray Sahab Yadav Gaurav Kakkar