Allowed

Doctor Yadav @ Satendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2018BAIL/29649/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the release of the applicant on bail in a criminal case involving Sections 394 and 411 IPC. Despite the applicant being an absconder, he was granted bail subject to personal and sush heirty bonds and specific conditions of conduct. The decision was made without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Relieved on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in double the earlier amount.

Doctor Yadav @ Satendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29649 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Doctor Yadav @ Satendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The applicant was initially granted bail by the court below on 08.02.2013. He attended the trial up to 08.08.2014 and non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant on 30.10.2014. The applicant is absconding from 08.08.2014 and now he is in jail since 20.02.2018.

¶7

The argument is that in search of livelihood the applicant went to Chandigarh and his counsel did not informed the applicant about the date fixed in the proceedings, he has surrendered before the court below.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant, Doctor Yadav @ Satendra Kumar , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 222 of 2012, under Sections 394 and 411 I.P.C, P.S. Bidhuna, DistrictAuraiya on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount of twice the amount earlier taken to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice :-

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶12

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶13

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.8.2018 Rohit

Doctor Yadav @ Satendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doctor Yadav @ Satendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukhtar Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Ram Vs State of U.P.

Shrawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kaluwa Vs State of U.P. and Others

Akeel Vs State of U.P.

Prem Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.