Allowed

Chanchal Yadav @ Vinay Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2019BAIL/36810/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application under Sections 354, 323, 506 IPC and 7/8 PASCO Act was allowed. The High Court granted bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions mandating presence in court, prohibiting adjournments, and warning against misuse of liberty. The court did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of like amount.

Chanchal Yadav @ Vinay Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 60

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36810 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Chanchal Yadav @ Vinay Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ran Vijay Singh,Kamla Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,V.K.S.Kushwaha

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.79 of 2018, under Sections 354 (kha), 323, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 PASCO Act, Police Station Khanpur, District Ghazipur.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to village party bandi. It is also contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no injury on the body of the victim. It is also contended that there is criminal history of only one case against the applicant except the present case. It is next contended that no internal or external injury was found on the private part of the victim. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.07.2018.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that there is no reason to falsely implicate the applicant, therefore, he does not deserve any benevolence. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Chanchal Yadav @ Vinay Yadav involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following

¶10

conditions :-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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 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. 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.

¶15

Order Date :- 24.4.2019

¶16

m.a.

Chanchal Yadav @ Vinay Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanchal Yadav @ Vinay 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

Kulsum and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Usman Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Junaid Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Pal Singh @ Bittu Vs State of U.P.

Awadhesh Shukla Vs State of U.P.