Allowed

Ritesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2021BAIL/3272/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J., allowed bail in a case under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Act, 1986. The court held that the applicant made out a fit case for bail, imposing specific conditions on personal bond and sureties to ensure presence and prevent abuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond with two sureties under specific conditions regarding court appearance and prohibition on seeking adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3272 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ritesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0046 of 2020, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police StationAtaraulia, District-Azamgarh during the pendency of trial.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to the gang chart the applicant is said to have been involved in one criminal case in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned and the copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the application. He has falsely been implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. He is not a member of any gang. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is not a previous convict. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.02.2020 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the applicant is a member of gang and habitual of committing crime. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar anti-social activities and will misuse the bail by extending threat and intimidation to the prosecution witnesses.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Ritesh Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

(i) 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.

¶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

(v) The applicant shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶16

(vi) The computer generated copy of this order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶17

(vii) 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.

¶18

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.1.2021 Sunil Kr. Gupta

Ritesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh 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

Sonu and Another Vs State of Up

Ashish Singh Vs State of U.P.

Dr Krishna Lal Patel @ Dr K.L.Patel Vs State of U.P.

Faheem Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Kumar Patel @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Mahboob Kureshi Vs State of U.P.