Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Sanjeev Yadav vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|19 May, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 6
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20284 of 2021 Applicant :- Sanjeev Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nishant Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Nishant Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State through video conferencing mode.
A first information report was lodged as Case Crime No.168 of 2020 at Police Station- Rijor District- Etah on 28.09.2020 under Section 392 IPC.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (D.A.A)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Etah on 26.03.2021.
The applicant is in jail since 23.01.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.
Sri Nishant Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicant contends that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. The applicant has not been named in the FIR. No recovery of allegedly looted articles have been made from the applicant. The applicant does not have any previous criminal history. However after the lodgment of the FIR the police authorities have implicated the applicant in one criminal case in which the applicant has been bailed out. Lastly it is submitted by Sri Nishant Dwivedi, learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.
Learned A.G.A could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Sanjeev Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No.168 of 2020 at Police Station- Rijor District- Etah under Section 392 IPC on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either through his counsel or personally as and when directed by the learned trial court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.
(ii) 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.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, the trial in order to secure his presence may issue a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In case 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.
(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(v) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vi) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 19.5.2021 Nadeem Ahmad Digitally signed by Justice Ajay Bhanot Date: 2021.05.23 15:53:52 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sanjeev Yadav vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
19 May, 2021
Judges
  • Ajay Bhanot
Advocates
  • Nishant Dwivedi