Allowed

Shailendra Pratap Yadav @ S.P.Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2021BAIL/32349/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Court No. 71 granted bail to the applicant, Shailendra Pratap Yadav, in a criminal case under Sections 395 and 506 IPC, considering the reformative theory of punishment, constitutionality under Article 21, and concerns regarding jail overcrowding during the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the magistrate/court concerned.

Shailendra Pratap Yadav @ S.P.Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32349 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Shailendra Pratap Yadav @ S.P.Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA, appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the coaccused Chandrajeet Yadav @ Pattar @ Dhanpattar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13969 of 2021, a copy of said order has been produced by the learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record and the case of the applicant stands on better footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 06.04.2021. Criminal history of the applicant has properly been explained in para 4 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶9

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶10

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶11

Let applicant- Shailendra Pratap Yadav @ S. P. Yadav , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 206 of 2020, under Sections- 395 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Ahraula, District- Azamgarh, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶12

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶13

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶14

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 6.10.2021 Arti

Shailendra Pratap Yadav @ S.P.Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Pratap Yadav @ S.P.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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithun Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Ishu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aakash Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Saheb Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Javed Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Faeem Vs State of U.P.