Allowed

Indrajeet Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2021BAIL/17803/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to Indrajeet Yadav, applicant in a case involving Section 8/22 NDPS Act offenses at Etmadadaulla, Agra. The court found it a fit case for bail without commenting on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail along with a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions including attendance in court and undertaking not to seek adjournments.

Indrajeet Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17803 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Indrajeet Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Dubey,Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State through video conferencing and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.11 of 2021, under Sections 8/22 of NDPS Act at Police Station Etmadadaulla, District Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. From the possession of the applicant, 450 grams Alprazolam is said to have been recovered, whereas the fact is that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the application. The recovery that has been made from the possession of the applicant is false and fabricated one. There is no independent eye witness of the alleged recovery. He has further submitted that at the time of arrest, mandatory provisions of NDPS Act has not been complied with. He has further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Pulli @ Awanish Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17193 of 202. Since the coaccused has already been granted bail, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. He has further submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 06.01.2021.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Indrajeet Yadav , who is involved in

¶11

aforementioned case crime 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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.6.2021

¶23

Ajeet

Indrajeet Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrajeet 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Sharma (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Inamul Vs State of U.P.

Veer Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ramvaran Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.