Allowed

Ramu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2021BAIL/22446/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad allowed a bail application filed by Ramu Yadav in a case under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The court, noting a prima facie lack of evidence regarding gang membership, released the applicant on bail. The order was confined strictly to the bail aspect without prejudice to the ultimate merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Ramu Yadav was released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Ramu Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22446 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ramu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I appearing on behalf of the State.

¶6

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present crime on account of his involvement in two other cases, wherein he has been granted bail, details whereof have been mentioned in paragraph nos. 7, 8 & 9 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is further submitted that coaccused Satyendra alias Manna Yadav has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.6.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22298 of 2021. It is next contended that present case has been lodged against the applicant without any consideration of evidence by the police that may show that the applicant is a member of a criminal gang. It is submitted that, in fact, there is no evidence on record to show that the applicant is a member of a criminal gang. The applicant is in jail since 25.3.2021.

¶7

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in the substantive offence, and, the fact that prima facie there is no evidence to show that the applicant is a member of a criminal gang or its leader, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶9

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant - Ramu Yadav involved in in Case Crime No. 84 of 2021, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Police Station Jhangaha, District Gorakhpur be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like

¶11

amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶13

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶15

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶16

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶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 :- 15.7.2021 Digamber

¶23

Digitally signed by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh Date: 2021.07.16 17:32:07 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu 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

Raju Gupta @ Bachcna Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Raju Gupta @ Bachcha Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Prabhunath Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Azad Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P.