Allowed

Atul Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2025/579/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under the U.P. Gangster Act where the applicant was in jail since September 2020 and had been granted bail in the cases shown on his gang-chart; court allowed bail without entering into merits, imposing conditions on attendance and cooperation at trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount to satisfaction of court concerned.

Atul Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5011

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 579 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Atul Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Singh,Aditya Singh Tomer Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 503 of 2020, under sections 2(Kha) (i)/3 of U.P. Gangster (Prevention of Antisocial Activities) Act, 1986, Police Station-Phoolbehar, District-Lakhimpur Kheri is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per gang-chart, one case has been shown against the applicant and there is one more case against the applicant under the Arms Act and in both the cases, the applicant has already been granted bail. The copy of the bail orders have been enclosed as Annexure No. 3 & 4 to the afÏdavit filed alongwith bail application.

¶8

It is further submitted that the applicant is innocent and is languishing in jail since 09.09.2020. It is further submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will not indulge in any criminal activities and will cooperate in the trial by all means.

¶9

It is further submitted that in absence of allegation concerning an act or omission on the part of an accused, covered by the definition of term "gang" and "gangster" as provided under Section 2 of the Act, no FIR is maintainable.

¶10

The bail has already been granted to one of the co-accused namely Lalluram Yadav. The copy of the bail order has already been enclosed as Annexure no. 5 to the afÏdavit filed alongwith bail application and the applicant is claiming parity of the same.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail but failed to dispute the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and examining the material available on record, keeping in view the nature of offence and totality of facts and circumstances of the case and without entering

¶13

into the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Atul Kumar Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 503 of 2020, under sections 2(Kha) (i)/3 of U.P. Gangster (Prevention of Antisocial Activities) Act, 1986, Police Station-Phoolbehar, District-Lakhimpur Kheri be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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 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.

¶19

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶20

It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Nitesh

¶22

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Atul Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Parashuram vs Smt. Renu Kushwaha Secy/ Mukhya Karya Palak Adhikari Distt. Cooperative Bank Ltd. Barabanki

Digamber Singh Bhandari vs Ravi Ranjan, Managing Director / Sec. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. Lucknow

Deena Nath vs Sri G.S. Priyadarshi, Commissioner, Rural Development U.P. Jawahar Bhawan, Lko. and Another

Chhathi Ram Verma Vs Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, Sub Divisional Magistrate Tehsil Gonda District Gonda and Another

Anil Kumar Singh Vs Dr. Ram Chandra, Distt. Inspector of Schools, Gonda

Raj Kumari and 2 Others Vs Ashwani Kumar Pandey Sub Divisional Magistrate Bahraich and 3 Others