Sumit Yadav vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45122

Court No. - 36

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2715 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

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

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.22 of 2024, under Sections 61 (2), 111 (3) BNS, Police Station Cyber Crime Branch, District Lalitpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that initially the impugned first information report has been lodged under Sections 319 (2), 318 (4), 111(4) of BNS and Section 66C and 66D of Information Technology Act in which the applicant has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 02.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2654 of 2025. He has further submitted that during investigation, the investigating officer of the case has also added Sections 61 (2) & 111 (3) BNS in the above mentioned Case Crime No.22 of 2024 and on the basis of bail order dated 02.04.2025 passed by this Court, the applicant is also entitled for bail in the present case. The applicant has no concern with the alleged recovery. The applicant is having no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 08.09.2024.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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:

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Ajeet

¶21

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

Salik vs State of U.P.

Dev vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumit Yadav vs State of U.P.

Aashif vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Adesh Tyagi vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit vs State of U.P.