Allowed

Raisahab Singh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2020BAIL/12167/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC, the court granted bail to the applicant on heavy sureties. The order imposed conditions regarding witness presence, court attendance, and adherence to a prior celebrated order, noting no apprehension of tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties with specific conditions regarding court attendance and non-interference with witnesses.

Raisahab Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12167 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Raisahab Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

The matter has been placed today in the fresh list, in Chambers.

¶6

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA for the State through video-conferencing.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Raisahab Singh Yadav with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No-152 of 2019, under Sections-395, 397, 412 I.P.C., Police StationDevgaon, District-Azamgarh , during pendency of trial.

¶8

From perusal of the bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:

¶9

(i) the applicant is accused of offences under Sections395, 397, 412 I.P.C.

¶10

(ii) against FIR lodged on 03.08.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 23.12.2019;

¶11

(iii) chargesheet has already been submitted yet there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

¶12

(iv) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been stated that the applicant has been completely falsely implicated and that the recovery is planted. In any case, the applicant has remained confined for more than five months. In such circumstances and also keeping in mind the long criminal history of the applicant (which the applicant claims to be similarly based on false accusation), applicant is found entitled to bail at this stage though on heavy sureties;

¶13

(v) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witnesses.

¶14

This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

¶15

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Raisahab Singh Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶21

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

(viii) It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, the informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material. That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.

¶24

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶25

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accusedapplicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶26

Order Date :- 1.6.2020 Shubham

Raisahab Singh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raisahab Singh 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Utkarsh Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Pal Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Tarun Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Kumar Sharma Alias Mithuwa Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Vs State of U.P.