Allowed

Sunil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2020BAIL/23300/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to an applicant charged under the UP Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant alleged false implication and lack of antisocial activity. Bail was granted on personal bond and sureties subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to compliance of conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23300 of 2020 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jawahar Lal Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that three cases have been shown against the applicant in the gang-chart and in all the cases, the applicant is on bail. Copies of the bail orders have been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It has also been submitted that the applicant is not involved in any antisocial activities and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The copy of the gang-chart has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit. It is further submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or of tampering with the prosecution evidence. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 25.02.2020 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶6

Learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. However, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant has been granted bail in the cases mentioned in the gang-chart.

¶7

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon the perusal of the record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶8

Let the applicant- Sunil Kumar Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No.365 of 2019 under Section 2/3 UP Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station-Puramufti, DistrictKaushambi, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶9

(a) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complaint in any manner whatsoever.

¶10

(b) The applicant will abide by the orders of the court, attend the court on each and every date and he will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶11

(c) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activity.

¶12

(d) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶14

Order Date :- 28.8.2020/LN Tripathi

Sunil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar 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

Divya Pandey and Another vs National Insurance Company Ltd. and 3 Others

Divya Pandey and Another vs National Insurance Company Ltd. and 3 Others

Netrapal Singh Vs U.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr.

Anoop Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Monu @ Kanahiya Vs State of U.P.

Mateen Khan Vs State of U.P.