Allowed

Suresh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2022BAIL/33210/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the U.P. Gangster Act, the High Court released the applicant on personal bond and sureties. The relief was granted subject to strict conditions regarding witness tampering, court attendance, and prohibition of litigation delays.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions prohibiting witness tampering, ensuring court attendance, and abstaining from adjournments.

Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33210 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Suresh Kumar Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 205 of 2021, under Sections 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act , Police Station Balua, District- Chandauli, during 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 two criminal cases in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. He has falsely been implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. The applicant is not a member of any gang. He is languishing in jail since 19.8.2021 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

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the cases of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 & Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 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 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

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on

¶13

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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 :- 6.8.2022 Ruchi Agrahari

¶19

Digitally signed by RUCHI AGRAHARI Date: 2022.08.06 15:07:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suresh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akeel @ Sannu Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Bahal Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Dhanman Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gucchan Vs State of U.P.

Jhuman Shah Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Kumar Vs State of U.P.