The High Court allowed a bail application in a murder and kidnapping case after noting that co-accused were already on bail and no criminal history existed for the applicant. The court granted bail subject to strict conditions and directed expedited trial.
Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties each on specified conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8800 of 2021
Applicant :- Satendra Yadav @ Satya Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhavya Sahai,Brijesh Sahai(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Bhavya Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned brief holder appearing for the State.
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 8.9.2020.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.
The new ground which has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant is the co-accused namely Abhishek Yadav and Anuj Kumar have already been admitted to bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 27.1.2021 and 19.3.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.13302 of 2020 and 23500 of 2020, a copy of said order has been annexed as annexure-SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 22.3.2021, which is on record. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has 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 available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.10.2019. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
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.
Let the applicant Satendra Yadav @ Satya Pal involved in Case Crime No.518 of
2019, under Sections 302, 201, 394, 411, 120-B & 34 I.P.C., Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
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.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 25.7.2022 Dev/-
Digitally signed by DEV PRAKASH Date: 2022.07.27 11:26:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be granted bail having regard to the prima facie satisfaction of the charge and the larger mandate of Article 21.
What conditions of bail should be imposed to ensure the applicant's presence and cooperation with the trial.
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the proceedings in a case involving severe punishment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram SinghReferred¶10
(2018) 2 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
10 provisions across 10 enactments
Satendra Yadav
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
