Allowed

Mulayam Yadav v. the State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024BAIL/3853/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act for an applicant with multiple prior cases, most resolved on bail. Court granted bail noting no apprehension of flight or evidence tampering, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Mulayam Yadav released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties, subject to stated conditions.

Mulayam Yadav vs the State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71213

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3853 of 2024 Applicant :- Mulayam Yadav Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Samrat Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶4

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶6

This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.0112 of 2021, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow, during pendency of trial.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in in the instant case. It is further urged that in the gang chart two cases have been shown against the applicant, wherein he has been enlarged on bail. It is further urged that the applicant is not member of any gang nor he is its leader. It is further stated that though the applicant has a history of 10 cases, the same has been explained. The applicant in compliance of Section 19 of the Act, 1986 has filed his supplementary affidavit stating that after granting bail, he shall not involve himself or indulge in any criminal activity. In such circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that two cases, which have been mentioned in the gang chart, in both the cases the applicant has been enlarged on bail. Moreover, the list of cases, which has said to be pending against the applicant, in majority of them, the applicant has been enlarged on bail. It has also not been disputed that the applicant is not in a position to influence any witness or tamper with any evidence. More so, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant that he shall not indulge in any criminal activity after being enlarged on bail.

¶9

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation

¶10

against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness as well as noticing that the applicant has been in jail since 24.03.2021, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Mulayam Yadav involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶12

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall neither influence any witness nor tamper with any evidence after his release.

¶18

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 Ashutosh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mulayam Yadav v. the State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mulayam Yadav v. the State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

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

Liyakat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Ganga Ram and 15 Others Vs Collector Gonda Distt. Gonda and 4 Others

Arunesh Chandra Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Savaijpur, Tahsil Savaijpur, Hardoi and Others

Aditya Singh Alias Major vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Charu Mishra vs Union of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Deptt.Thru. Its Prin. Secy. and 5 Others

Lalman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy Govt. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.