Allahabad High Court
Sopali Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 19 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:180537 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42248 of 2024 Applicant :- Sopali Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder, for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.0151 of 2024, under Sections 379,411 and 328 IPC, Police Station Gunnawar, District Sambhal during pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that nobody was named in the FIR and during investigation applicant has been made accused in the present matter and as per prosecution from the possession of the applicant and co-accused Arshad Ahmad stolen E-rickshaw of the informant was recovered but entire recovery is false.
4. He further submits that except recovery there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant with regard to offence of theft and offence under Section 328 IPC. He next submits that except offence under Section 328 IPC, offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC are triable by Magistrate with maximum punishment of seven years.
5. He further submits that applicant was not having any previous criminal history and however, when he was arrested in the present matter then he was also made accused in five other cases and entire criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application.
6. He further submits that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 14.6.2024, i.e., for the last more than five months.
7. Per contra, learned AGA, however, opposed the prayerfor bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
9. However, as per prosecution from the possession of the applicant and co-accused Arshad Ahmad alleged stolen E-rickshaw was recovered but except recovery it appears that there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record. Further, however, applicant has also been challaned for offence under Section 328 IPC but there is also no cogent evidence against the applicant on record for offence under Section 328 IPC and remaining offences of Sections 379 and 411 IPC are triable by Magistrate with maximum punishment of seven years.
10. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is also having criminal history of five others but he was not having any previous criminal history and it appears, when he was arrested in the present matter then he has also been made accused in five other cases and entire criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application.
11. Further, applicant in the present matter is in jail since 14.6.2024, i.e., for the last more than five months.
12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
14. Let the applicant-Sopali Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 19.11.2024 SKM