Allowed

Vijendra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2021BAIL/2947/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2947 of 2021, the Court granted bail to applicant Vijendra Yadav involved in an offence under IPC and Section 66 of IT Act, based on parity with co-accused who were already released. Bail was subject to furnishing bond, sureties, and strict undertakings regarding court attendance and non-interference.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2947 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vijendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Deep Srivastava,Naveen Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 1355 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of Information Technology (Amendment) Act- 2008, Police Station Cantt, District Gorakhpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the FIR applicant and 11 co-accused were solver in the examination of Staff Selection Commission (SSC). The co-accused Pintu Yadav and Abhishek Kumar Yadav have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 19.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 553 of 2021 & 997 of 2021, therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 28.11.2020.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact that coaccused have already been released on bail.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, enlargement of co-accused Pintu Yadav and Abhishek Kumar Yadav on bail, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Vijendra Yadav involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to

¶10

the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶12

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 21.1.2021 Israr

Vijendra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mawab Gujjar Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Wadhawa @ Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Goshwami Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vipin @ Sudesh Vs State of U.P.

Amit Singh Vs State of U.P.