Disposed

Abhishek Yadav and Another v. State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2021A482/23784/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed lower court to decide applicant's bail application without physical custody under Supreme Court guidelines for Category-A offences, arising from IPC charges punishable up to seven years.

What did the court decide?

Lower court directed to decide bail application without physical custody of applicant appearing before it, adhering to Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.

Abhishek Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P through… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23784 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Abhishek Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Secretary Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

When the case is called out, Sri Karunesh Pratap Singhlearned counsel for the applicants, at the very outset contended that he does not want to press the prayer claimed in the present application. However, he submitted that as the matter relates to Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 308, 325 IPC and maximum punishment provided under those sections are only up to seven years, therefore, in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & others passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 decided on 7.10.2021, lower court may be directed to grant him bail without taking him into physical custody.

¶6

Learned AGA states that if such direction is given, he has no objection.

¶7

From the perusal of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) it appears that Hon'ble Supreme Court categorized the offences in following four categories:-

¶8

"Categories/Types of Offences"

¶9

A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in category B & D.

¶10

B) Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.

¶11

C) Offences punishable under Special Act containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (S.37), PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212(6) etc.

¶12

D) Economic offences not covered by Special Acts.

¶13

The present case falls in category-A as offences are punishable for maximum 7 years and any of the offence does not fall in category B & D.

¶14

In the above noted case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court issued guidelines in respect of categories A, B, C and D and for category-A following guidelines were issued:-

¶15

a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer.

¶16

b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued.

¶17

c) NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.

¶18

d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.

¶19

e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

¶20

As per clause (e) of the guidelines issued in respect of offences falls in category-A, Hon'ble Apex Court directed that bail applications of the accused relates to offences of category-A on his appearance may be decided without accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail, till the bail application is decided.

¶21

In view of the above guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), court below is hereby directed that as the offences of the present case falls in the category-A, therefore, in view of clause (e) of the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court for offences falls in the category-A, when applicants appeared before him then his bail application shall be decided in view of the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶22

With the aforesaid direction, present Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of .

¶23

Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Ankita

¶24

Digitally signed by SAMEER JAIN Date: 2021.12.21 17:10:46 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhishek Yadav and Another v. State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Yadav and Another v. State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another

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

Bhoora and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal Madan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rajni and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Radha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P..and Anothers

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another