Allowed

Suman Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2024/1700/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Suman Yadav in a case involving abduction and kidnapping arising from a Sessions trial in Lucknow, referring to Supreme Court precedents emphasizing bail as the norm and citing contradictions in prosecution statements.

What did the court decide?

The application is allowed; the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions of appearance and conduct.

Suman Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55609

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1700 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Suman Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

¶7

On 31.07.2024, the following order had been passed:-

¶8

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

¶9

2. Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Sessions Trial no.357 of 2019 bearing Case Crime no.44 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. registered in P.S. Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

¶10

3. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of the first information report will indicate that there was no role of applicant with regard to Sections involved and there is serious contradictions in statements of prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that a final report had been filed against applicant but she has subsequently been summoned under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

¶11

4. With regard to aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Government Advocate is granted ten days' time to file objections.

¶12

5. List this case on 12.08.2024 at 02.15 P.M.

¶13

6. In the meantime, it is provided that applicant Suman Yadav shall not be arrested in aforesaid Case Crime."

¶14

In pursuance thereof, objections/ counter affidavit has been filed by learned A.G.A. which is taken on record.

¶15

A perusal of the aforesaid also indicates serious contradictions in the statement of prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has

¶17

specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under:-

¶18

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶19

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶20

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against applicant, the interim protection granted by this court vide order extracted above which has not been misused by the applicant; she further undertakes to cooperate in the trial; the applicant has no criminal history; statements under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; aspect that the final report had been filed against the applicant, who has thereafter been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.; without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant- Suman Yadav is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in Sessions Trial no.357 of 2019 bearing Case Crime no.44 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020) 5 SCC 1 , subject to her cooperation in the trial.

¶21

In view of the above, the order above extracted is made absolute. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶22

In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Suman Yadav before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case

¶23

crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing personal bond and two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./ Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:-

¶24

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

(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 her in accordance with law.

¶28

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶29

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Mohd. Sharif

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suman Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Charan Vs Bank of India and Others

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru Addl Chief Secy Basic Education and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Shubham Srivastava and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic. Education Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Veenita Tripathi and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and Others

Atish Prasad Mishra vs State Bank of India through Its General Manager, Mumbai and Others