RAMESH CHANDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State on the second bail application of Ramesh Chandra Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 46 of 2006, under sections 176, 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C. Police Station Cantt., District Allahabad and perused the facts of the case.

(2.) From perusal of the fact it is evident that regarding one cause of action two writ petitions were filed before this Court and one writ petition was filed by Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. It has been alleged that no instruction was given to Sri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate by the owner of the Firm namely Sri Mukesh Kumar Rao to file a petition on his behalf. On the information furnished by Sri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate one Sri Ram Chandra Yadav was summoned in this Court and statement of Sri Ram Chandra Yadav was recorded in the Court. Sri Rakesh Kumar identified Sri Ram Chandra Yadav as the person who instructed to file the writ petition in the name of Firm of Mukesh Rao when Sri Ram Chandra Yadav denied any acquaintance of Rakesh Kumar, Advocate to instruct to file writ petition. Thereafter, the name of applicant Ramesh Chandra Yadav came in the light and now it is alleged that it was Ramesh Chandra Yadav who instructed Sri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate to file writ petition in the name of Firm of Mukesh Kumar Rao.

(3.) Applicant's Counsel argued that Ramesh Chandra Yadav have nothing to do for giving any instruction to Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for filing a writ petition in the name of Firm of Mukesh Kumar Rao. That he had information that on behalf of Firm petition was filed. This accused stated that in connection of another matter he contracted Sri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate and due to this reason he was acquainted with Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. That he introduced Sri Mukesh Kumar Rao to Sri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for filing the writ petition. Without any reason the applicant is confined in jail. Certain material facts were not considered at that time of consideration of first bail application on 2.7.2007. A.G.A. opposed the bail of the applicant and it has been argued that it was Ramesh Chandra Yadav who instructed Rakesh Kumar for filing the writ petition on behalf of Mukesh Kumar Rao. There is no two persons of the name of Ram Chandra Yadav and Ramesh Yadav. Both are one and same person. It is very serious offence which was committed by the applicant. That all the facts have already been considered at the time of hearing of first bail application.