Allowed

Manish Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2021BAIL/30759/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant in a criminal trial under the UP Gangsters Act. The court found it a fit case for bail without examining merits. Bail was granted with a personal bond, two sureties, and strict conditions regarding appearance and trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding appearance and failure to appear resulting in arrest proceedings.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30759 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Manish Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sheshadri Trivedi,Ajay Kumar Pandey,Satish Trivedi (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Satish Trivedi, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Shashadri Trivedi, 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. 359 of 2021, under Section 2/3 of UP Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Shikohabad, District Firozabad.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that three cases have been shown against the accused-applicant in the gang chart, in which the applicant is on bail. Copy of gang-chart and bail order have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 2,3,4 & 5 respectively to the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 7.7.2021.

¶8

It is next contended that apart from the cases shown in the Gang Chart, applicant is having criminal history of five cases, which have been duly explained by him in paragraph no. 7 of the bail application. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that prosecution has carved out five cases out of which two cases shown in the gang chart bearing Case Crime Nos. 828 of 2021 and 829 of 2020, all arise from a single occurrence dated 30.12.2020, hence, in such circumstances the applicant cannot be said to be the leader of an organized gang. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself

¶9

available before the court whenever required. The applicant is languishing in jail since 7.7.2021. He undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶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- Manish Yadav , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her 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.

¶13

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE 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.

¶14

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER 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 HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES

¶17

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 HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 23.9.2021 SY

Manish Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

Lakhan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Prasad Patel @ Bala Bachha Vs State of U.P.

Rambabu Shah Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Saddam Vs State of U.P.

Babi Chaudhary Alias Ankit Sharma Vs State of U.P