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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4710

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10727 of 2024

Applicant :- Suresh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Pratap Singh,Ajay Pratap Singh,Ram Kinkar Upadhyay

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hanumant Lal Yadav,Shailendra Singh Chauhan

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Counter afÏdavit filed by learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶9

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No.440 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Ayodhya with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 25.4.2022. It is further submitted that first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 23.4.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8856 of 2022 with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial of the case in question but till today charge has not been framed. He further submits that he was implicated in one another case, in which, he is on bail. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but they do not dispute the fact that all the offences are triable by Magistrate.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by the

¶13

learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Application stands allowed .

¶15

Let applicant - Suresh Yadav be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 440 of 2020, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏce or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶19

(iv) 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶20

(v) 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. may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶21

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) 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 sufÏcient 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.

¶22

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 24.1.2025

¶24

Gaurav/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Shudhanshu Shekhar vs Dr. Raghu Nath Singh Director Admin. and Development Dierctorate of Animal Husbandry Lko and Anr.

Lalita Devi vs Dir. of Enforcement Lko.

Kalektar Tiwari Alias Sanjay Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another.

Ram Surat and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Ibrar Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Bablu Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another