Allowed

Jai Karan Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secretariat Lucknow

Allahabad HC24 May 2024/5621/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Jai Karan Yadav under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The Court allowed bail, imposing conditions regarding court appearances and prohibiting leave abroad, based on the applicant's undertaking and prior bail history.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear in court and not leave India.

Jai Karan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39686

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5621 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jai Karan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secretariat Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Tiwari,Ankit Dubey,Sunita Dwivedi

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard Ms. Sunita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Aniruddha Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

At the very outset, learned A.G.A. has informed that the learned counsel for the applicant has not enclosed the gang chart and in place of gang chart, she has enclosed the DCRB Report. Though, the copy of gang chart is with the learned A.G.A., wherein it has been indicated that there is one criminal history against the present applicant

¶9

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 30.04.2024 in Case Crime No.101 of 2024, under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Indira Nagar, DistrictLucknow.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that against the present applicant, only one case has been indicated in the gang chart in which the applicant has been granted bail. The bail order has been enclosed as Annexure Nos.3 to the bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant has not misused the liberty of bail so granted to him and detention of the present applicant

¶11

under Gangster Act is unwarranted. He has further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Further, the applicant undertakes that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that one case has been shown against the present applicant in the gang-chart in which he has been granted bail and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let applicant- Jai Karan Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on

¶18

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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 24.5.2024 Mohd. Sharif

¶24

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

Jai Karan Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secretariat Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Karan Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secretariat Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Munejar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home at Lko.U.P.

Dharmendra Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sani Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Hariram Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vasudev Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.