Allowed

Chandra Shekhar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2019BAIL/5871/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, Chandra Shekhar Yadav, charged under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, subject to personal bond, two sureties of Rs. 1 lakh each, and specific conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition of adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 1 lakh each, subject to specific undertakings regarding court attendance and conduct.

Chandra Shekhar Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5871 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nabi Ullah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Nabi Ullah, 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 only four cases have been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart which has been annexed at page-16 of the bail application and in the said case, the applicant has been granted bail by the competent Court. The applicant is in jail since 16.12.2018.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of submissions advanced and the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, let the applicant- Chandra Shekhar Yadav involved in Case Crime No.208 of 2018, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police StationBarsathi, District Jaunpur be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties (of Rs. one lakh) (one should be of family member) , each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following condition:-

¶9

(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.

¶10

(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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Dev/-

Chandra Shekhar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Shekhar 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

Zahid Vs State of U.P.

Ishak Khan Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Vs State of U.P.

Nadeem @ Babar Vs State of U.P.

Rajveer Vs State of U.P.

Aganoo Nat @ Vippalav @ Sultan Vs State of U.P.