High Court Court No. 78 allowed a bail application filed by Mukesh Yadav. The court found the case made out based on parity with co-accused on bail and lack of evidence, granting release subject to conditions.
Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount subject to 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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57540 of 2022
Applicant :- Mukesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Singh,Shyam Kumar Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Adhar Ram, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0011 of 2021, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986, P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli, during pendency of the trial.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to the gang chart, the applicant is said to have been involved in one case in which he has already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, copy of the bail order is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is not a member of any gang. Further submission is that similarly situated co-accused, namely, Ashutosh Yadav @ Chitku and Rama Nand have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 03.03.2022 and 24.03.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Applications No.44128 of 2021 and 13895 of 2021, respectively, hence the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future. The applicant is not a previous convict. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.10.2020 and in case, he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another , passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021,
the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Mukesh Yadav 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 27.1.2023 Meenu Singh
Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal miscellaneous bail application under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986 is allowable on grounds of parity and lack of tangible evidence against the ac
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & AnotherReferred¶10
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mukesh Yadav
Deepak Verma
Meenu Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
