Allowed

Sujeet Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2022BAIL/13784/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court released the applicant on bail for the pendency of trial under the U.P. Gangsters Act despite the prosecution's opposition. The order imposed strict conditions regarding evidence tampering, court attendance, and franchise by publishing a proclamation in case of bail misuse.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties on specified conditions.

Sujeet Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13784 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sujeet Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Datta Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sujeet Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 08 of 2022, under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Taryasujan, District- Kushi Nagar, pendency of trial.

¶7

Apart from two cases shown in the gang chart the applicant has criminal history of three more cases wherein he is on bail. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. The applicant is not a member of any gang. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.11.2021. 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 prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶10

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶12

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 as directed by the Court. 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 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.

¶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

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

¶17

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.7.2022 Rohit

¶19

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.07.16 16:47:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sujeet Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujeet 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh @ Baluwa Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Aas Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Abdul Jabbar Vs State of U.P.