Allowed

Surendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2021BAIL/3009/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court granted bail to the applicant in a theft and related offences case. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions regarding evidence tampering, witness interference, and strict adherence to court dates, including potential prosecution under Cr.P.C. Sec 82 and I.P.C. Secs 174-A and 229-A.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two local sureties, subject to strict undertaking to ensure presence and not tamper with evidence or witness.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3009 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar 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 available 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.560 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Badagaon, District Jhansi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the FIR version on 11.11.2020, three unknown persons looted Rs.49,000/- and after four days of the incident applicant and three unknown persons were arrested by showing the recovery of Rs.10,100/- and a mobile phone and on the basis of confessional statement applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He further submits that the applicant has a criminal history of five cases, which has clearly been explained in para 12 of the bail application. 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, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2020.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that there is no reason to falsely implicate the applicant, therefore, he does not deserve any benevolence.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the Surendra Kumar Yadav applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶10

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence and

¶11

pressurize the witnesses during trial.

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶13

(iii) 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.

¶14

(iv) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(v) 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.2.2021

¶19

m.a.

Surendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar 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

Jay Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Mishra @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Mishra @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Karan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Singh Vs State of U.P.

Fida Husain Vs State of U.P.