Disposed

Sarvan Yadav and 3 Other v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2021ABAIL/6169/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court heard an anticipatory bail application involving the SC/ST Act. Finding no exceptional grounds, the court denied anticipatory bail but directed applicants to surrender in 60 days for regular bail consideration, warning of coercive action otherwise.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; directed to apply for bail within 60 days of order date; no coercive action if surrendered within deadline.

Sarvan Yadav and 3 Other Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6169 of 2021 Applicant :- Sarvan Yadav And 3 Other Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶4

Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application

¶5

This exemption application is allowed.

¶6

Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Sarvan Yadav, Bali Ram Yadav, Sandeep Yadav and Andip Yadav , with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 25 of 2021, under Sections- 323, 352, 504, 506 IPC, 3(2)(va), 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police StationJahanaganj, District- Azamgarh, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused and also judgement of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not finds any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶9

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed, on the request of counsel for the applicants, that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 60 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as per the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P .

¶10

Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶11

However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶12

It is made clear that the applicants will not be granted any further time by this court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 5.3.2021/Ruchi Agrahari

Sarvan Yadav and 3 Other v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvan Yadav and 3 Other 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

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

Omprakash and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harivansh Yadav Pahalwan Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shankar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Zeeshan Vs State of U.P.

Indrajeet Nayak Vs State of U.P.