Allowed

Prabal Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2020BAIL/52884/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

During the lockdown period, this Court granted bail to the applicant in a case under the U.P. Gangsters Act. The applicant produced a personal bond instead of sureties due to the lockdown, with a direction to furnish proper sureties within four weeks of lifting the lockdown.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to furnishing a personal bond immediately and two sureties within four weeks of lifting the lockdown.

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

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52884 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Prabal Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yadavendra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

This bail application has been taken up during lock-down period as an urgent one.

¶6

State has filed written objection through online, hard copy of the same is taken on record.

¶7

Perused the records as well as counter affidavit filed by State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Prabal Kumar Yadav , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 248 of 2019, under Section 3(1G) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Sikandra, District-Kanpur Dehat , during pendency of trial.

¶9

According to the gang chart, the applicant is said to have been involved in two criminal cases in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. There are two other cases, which are not referred in the gang chart in which he has also been enlarged on bail. The applicant alleges false implication in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 25.07.2019.

¶10

By filing written objection, State has opposed the bail, but could not dispute the said fact.

¶11

By perusal of records, all other co-accused, namely, Pankaj, Saurabh, Banti @ Irshad, Ashu @ Takkal, Uvais and Vijay Shakya have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 30.9.2019, 1.10.2019, 22.10.2019, 18.11.2019 and 20.2.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 40769 of 2019, 41050 of 2019, 41213 of 2019, 43860 of 2019, 50279 of 2019 and 52909 of 2019.

¶12

Considering the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail subject to the following conditions :-

¶13

1.Considering the special circumstances of the lock-down prevailing in the district concerned presently and in the light of the directions of this Court in PIL No. 564 of 2020 dated 06.04.2020, let the applicant be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond only to the satisfaction of the jail authorities, where the applicant is languishing. It is further directed that within period of four weeks from the date of lifting of the complete lock-down in the district concerned resulting in resumption of normal functioning of the Courts in that district, the applicant shall furnish two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned alongwith certified copy of this order, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand cancelled necessitating surrender of the applicant.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

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;

¶20

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

Order Date :- 23.4.2020 Arvind

Prabal Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabal 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nakul Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Bittu @ Arun Vs State of U.P.

Shahab Anwar Siddiqui Vs State of U.P.

Pancham Gaurh Vs State of U.P

Maksood Khan Vs State of U.P.