Allowed

Suraj Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2021BAIL/25459/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, this Court granted bail to the applicant, foreseeing a documentary criminal case. The applicant was to furnish a personal bond and two sureties and adhere to strict conditions of presence during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount subject to strict conditions of presence and conduct.

Suraj Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25459 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Suraj Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Singh Sengar,Devottam Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today explaining the criminal history of the applicant, same are taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

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. 0035 of 2021, under Sections 60, 63, 72 Excise Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Gadwar, District Ballia.

¶8

It is contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is in jail since 16.5.2021.

¶9

It is next submitted that similarly placed co-accused Sanjay Pandey, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38159 of 2021, therefore, applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

Let the applicant- Suraj Yadav, who is involved in 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.

¶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

¶16

Section 229-A IPC.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶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

Order Date :- 8.12.2021/RavindraKSingh

Suraj Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj 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

Vikram Vs State of U.P.

Karan Urf Babloo Urf Chiranji Lal Vs State of U.P.

Hradesh Rai Vs State of U.P.

Saif Ali Vs State of U.P.

Sonam Verma Vs State of U.P.

Babloo @ Ramgopal Vs State of U.P.