Allowed

Lalu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2021BAIL/23018/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the court observed that the applicant's role is similar to a co-accused previously granted bail, deeming it a fit case for bail subject to strict conditions regarding trial attendance and no adjournment.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding trial attendance, no adjournment, and appearance on proclamation date.

Lalu Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23018 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Lalu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav 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 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 during the trial in Case Crime No. 261 of 2020, under Sections 411, 419, 420 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, District Katra.

¶7

It is contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is contended that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 26.11.2020 and has no criminal history.

¶8

It is next submitted that co-accused Mulayam Yadav has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.7.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23106 of 2021, therefore, applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

I have perused the bail order of co accused and find that the role assigned to the present applicant is almost similar to that of co accused person who has already been enlarged on bail by this court.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

Let the applicant- Lalu Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his

¶13

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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE

¶19

TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 2.8.2021 SY

¶26

Digitally signed by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav Date: 2021.08.02 16:04:42 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lalu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalu 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

Sohan Vs State of U.P.

Hotilal Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Mohd. Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Akash Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Beniwal Vs state of up

Rajendra Rajak Vs State of U.P.