Sumit Yadav vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45105

Court No. - 36

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2654 of 2025

Applicant :- Sumit Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav,Ramesh Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.

¶7

This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40216 of 2024, copy of bail order has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶9

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.22 of 2024, under Sections 319 (2), 318 (4), 111(4) of BNS and Section 66C and 66D of Information Technology Act, Police Station Cyber Crime Branch, District Lalitpur.

¶10

Prosecution story is that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the informant alleging therein that on 14.06.2024 he received a call on his mobile number 9651313712 from a person with mobile number 8423456832 who told him that he is called from SP Office and your FIR has been registered and accused has been caught, hence, you need to pay 3,000 rupees in Google for expenses of car petrol and food etc. It is further alleged that informant somehow arranged the money and paid it on phone of the said person's number 8423456832 but till now accused have not been arrested, thereafter, the informant talked to the said person on phone then he said that the said accused were caught and released on bail. It is further alleged that thereafter the informant inquired then it is found that there is no such type of person who cheated him and grabbed the money.

¶11

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR even the applicant is not named in the FIR. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.09.2024 having no previous criminal history. Further contention is that almost seven months have been passed but till date charge has not been framed against the applicant. Further contention is that in the present case, there is a petty amount induced by the culprits. Nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. Further contention is that the name of the applicant has been added as an accused in this incident solely on the basis of the statement given by the informant during investigation, which is not admissible in evidence. Prima facie no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶12

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Sumit Yadav , involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶15

(i) 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.

¶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 sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS.

¶17

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNS, 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 209 BNS.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS. 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.

¶19

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

With the aforesaid observation/direction, this bail application is allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Ajeet

¶24

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sumit Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Yadav v. State of U.P.

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

Arvind vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Singh vs State of U.P.

Ravi Alias Raviarya vs State of U.P.

Salik vs State of U.P.

Dev vs State of U.P. and Another

Aashif vs State of U.P. and 3 Others