Allowed

Rajneesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2019BAIL/10592/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to the applicant in a criminal case under the U.P. Gangsters Act. The court imposes strict conditions regarding attendance and prohibits seeking adjournments during evidence, setting a security of Rs. Two Lac each from two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of applicant on bail with personal bond and two sureties of Rs. Two Lac each, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and compliance.

Rajneesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10592 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rajneesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Shahi,Ashish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not committed the alleged offence. It is next contended that three cases have been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart and in the said case/cases, the applicant has been granted bail which has been properly explained in paragraph 4 to 6, of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is further contended that there is also no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant who is in jail since 15.12.2018, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer but has not disputed the aforesaid fact.

¶8

Keeping in view the submissions advanced and the provisions for Section 19 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,1986, evidence, complicity of the accused, reformative theory of punishment , and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶9

Let the applicant- Rajneesh Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 332 of 2018, under Section- 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Khajni, District- Gorakhpur, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties (Rs. Two Lac each) (One should be of a family member) before the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against

¶13

him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶15

If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.3.2019

¶18

ssm

Rajneesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monu Bansal Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Tamanna @ Kallo Vs State of U.P.

Anvar Vs State of U.P.

Shahnawaj Vs State of U.P.

Irfan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shoeb Ahmad Alias Raju Khan and Another Vs State of U.P.