Allowed

Suresh Yadav and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2020BAIL/40485/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40485 of 2020, the Hon'ble Court granted bail to applicants Suresh Yadav and Sanjay @ Sandeep accused under various sections of IPC, imposing specific conditions regarding court appearance and recording of statements.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and specific conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition of adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40485 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Suresh Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.

¶5

The case is called out in the revised list.

¶6

Learned counsel for the bail-applicants, Sri Sarvesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

¶7

The present bail-application is filed on behalf of accusedapplicants who are involved in Case Crime No.117 of 2020, under Sections 323, 325, 341, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station- Khanpur, District- Ghazipur.

¶8

The occasion of present bail-application has arisen on rejection of bail plea of accused-applicants by learned Addl. Sessions Judge Ist, Ghazipur vide order dated 08.10.2020. A copy of bail-application has already been received in the office of learned G.A.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the accusedapplicants are quite innocent and are falsely been implicated and illegally connected on the basis of false allegation. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants are languishing in jail since 30.09.2020. There is no previous criminal history of the accused-applicants and there is no likelihood that the accused-applicants, after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the bail applicant further submits that the co-accused Arvind Kumar Yadav involved in the same case crime number for similar nature of offence has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.09.2020 (annexed as Annexure No.5 to the bail application), therefore, on the ground of parity, the present bail applicant is also entitled for bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of

¶13

bail but on the basis of instructions, has not disputed the above contention made by learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶14

Looking into the complicity of the applicants-accused in the offence, the gravity of offence, severity of punishment in case of any possible conviction, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶15

Let applicant (Suresh Yadav & Sanjay @ Sandeep) involved in Case Crime No.117 of 2020, under Sections 323, 325, 341, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station- Khanpur, DistrictGhazipur, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.11.2020 Gaurav Pal

Suresh Yadav and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Yadav and Another 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

Aash Khan @ Ashu @ Mahafooz Ui Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Amit Upadhyay @ Sonu @ Baba Vs State of U.P.

Anoop Singh Vs State of U.P.