Allowed

Ajay Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 May 2020BAIL/9886/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This chamber judgment allowed the bail application of Ajay Yadav, who was in jail for assault charges. The court held that he had made out a case for bail based on his lack of motive and Article 21, citing Dataram Singh. He is released on a personal bond with specific undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on execution of a personal bond without sureties subject to specific conditions of attendance and undertaking.

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

¶1

In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9886 of 2020 Applicant :- Ajay Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kiran Chaudhary,Jai Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravi Shanker Pathak

¶2

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶3

This bail application has been listed before me pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 04.04.2020 for consideration, therefore, same is being decided in Chamber under the extraordinary conditions prevailing now-adays.

¶4

I have perused the bail application filed on behalf of Ajay Yadav, who is languishing in jail since 05.11.2019 in connection with Case Crime No.255 of 2019 u/s Sections 147, 148, 323, 307, 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.-Jaitpura, District-Varanasi.

¶5

It is culled out from the material available on record that initially, FIR was registered under sections 147, 148, 323, 307 IPC by one Raj Kumar on 02.11.2019 for the incident said to have been taken place on 01.11.2019 against six named accused persons and few unknown persons. The applicant is not named in the FIR. It is under the confessional statement of co-accused person, name of the applicant figured up and that is why his name has been added for hatching conspiracy in the commission of assault. The applicant could not have any motive to commit this offence or hatch conspiracy. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.11.2019.

¶6

Taking into account the entire gamut of circumstances, role attributed to the applicant and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶7

Let the applicant, Ajay Yadav , who is involved in Case Crime No.255 of 2019 u/s Sections 147, 148, 323, 307, 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.-Jaitpura, District-Varanasi, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶8

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶9

(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 IPC.

¶10

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶11

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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.

¶12

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶13

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

¶14

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶15

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

4. 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.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.5.2020

¶20

Sumit S

Ajay Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Abu Sujat Vs State of U.P.

Kishori Lal Rathor Vs State of U.P.

Sawez @ Gattu Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Nida Parveen Vs State of U.P.

Samir Vs State of U.P.