CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Rakesh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 8 November 2011 · Citation: (2011) 11 AHC CK 0122

HON’BLE JUDGES
Virendra Kumar Dixit, J · Abdul Mateen, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302, 34
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M. Application No. 25952 of 2010 In re : Criminal Appeal No. 684 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 348 words
1.

Heard Shri Anil K. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for applicantappellant, and learned Additional Government Advocate on the prayer for bail made by means of moving aforesaid application u/s 389 Cr.P.C. AppellantRakesh Yadav is convict of Sessions Trial No. 451 of 2001. He has been convicted u/s 302/34 IPC vide judgment and order dated 20.02.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Room No. 10, Pratapgarh and sentenced for maximum term of life imprisonment with fine stipulation.

2.

We have gone through the judgment and record of lower court.

3.

It comes out that at about 8.30 P.M. when the complainant and brother of the deceased and other persons were coming on a lane, three persons, including the appellant, waylaid the deceased.

4.

It has been submitted that only role assigned to appellantRakesh Yadag is of catching hold leg of the deceased; fatal injuries of axe (Kulhari) blows were inflicted on the deceased by Shanker Lal; coconvictNangan Yadav has already been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 23.12.2010 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2010; case of the appellant lies on same footing as that of coconvictNangan Yadav; appellant was on bail during the course of trial and he did not misuse liberty of bail granted to him and appeal will take considerable long time for reaching on its logical conclusion.

5.

Taking into consideration overall aspects of the matter and without commenting any further on merits of the case, we find it a fit case for bail. Let appellantRakesh Yadav, convict of aforesaid sessions trial, be also released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh. Realization of half of the fine is stayed and remaining half of the fine shall be deposited by the appellant within one month from the date of his release on bail.

6.

The court below is directed to transmit to this Court forthwith photocopies of bond and sureties filed by appellant to be preserved in the record maintained here.