VIVEK YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record of the case.

(2.) The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that earlier a case was registered as case crime no. 1084/08, wherein the applicant and one Nandu Yadav were named. It is alleged in that FIR that accused applicant had fled away leaving behind BOLERO (vehicle), which he was driving, but Nandu Yadav was arrested on the spot along with another vehicle. It is Nandu Yadav, who disclosed the name of the accused applicant and the vehicle which was left behind has been connected to present case crime no. 820/08. He further submits that the accused applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case as co- accused Nandu Yadav of the earlier case (Case Crime No.1084/08) is inimical to the present applicant. This contention is averred in para 6 of the bail application. It is further contended that the story as set up by the prosecution against him is false and concocted and that the offences so levelled against the accused applicant are triable by Magistrate. The applicant is in jail since 24.4.2009, as mentioned in para 12 of the bail application, which has not been controverted by the State. Considering the overall aspects of the matter, I hereby provide that the applicant be released on bail in Case Crime No.820/2008, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur, on his filing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.