Allowed

Suraj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Allahabad HC1 May 2024BAIL/4735/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gangster Act detention bail application for an accused in custody since April 2018 whose four prior gang-chart cases each carried bail. The court, noting no misuse of earlier bail and the applicant's undertaking to comply with conditions, allowed the bail application and ordered release on personal bond with two sureties and standard attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions on trial attendance and non-misuse of liberty.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36027

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4735 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Suraj Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Counsel for Applicant :- Punit Kumar Shukla,Priyanka Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Punit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vishwa Nath Nishad, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

2. Sri Punit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant has filed the supplementary affidavit, today in the Court, in terms of Section 19 (4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the same is taken on record.

¶8

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Suraj Yadav) is languishing in jail since 15.04.2018 in Case Crime No.253 of 2018, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police StationKotwali, District-Sitapur.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that against the present applicant there are four cases shown in the gang chart (Annexure No.2) in which the applicant has been granted bail by this Court as well as by the learned court below. The bail orders have been enclosed as Annexure Nos.3 to 6 with this bail application. The criminal history of the present applicant are duly explained in para-6 of the bail application, which are of the year 2017. He has further submitted that the present applicant has not misused the liberty of bail so granted to him and detention of the present applicant under Gangster Act is unwarranted. He undertakes that the applicant 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 with the trial proceedings properly.

¶11

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the involvement of the present applicant has been found in the commission of offence, therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail, but he has not disputed the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the material available on record, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that in all the cases shown in the gang-chart the present applicant has been granted bail, the undertaking of the present applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail. Therefore, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶13

8. Let the applicant (Suraj 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:-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 applicants fail 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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶19

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 9.5.2024 Suresh/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suraj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

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

Ram Ujagar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.

Mohd. Raes Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Sajid Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Sonpal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Taleband Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Gulshan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Deptt. Lko