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

Yogendra Thakur vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|21 May, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 6
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18694 of 2021 Applicant :- Yogendra Thakur Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State through video conferencing mode.
A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No.0700 of 2015 at Police Station- Sadabad, District- Hathras on 19.08.2015 under Section2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge Ganster Act, Court No. 4, Hathras on 19.03.2021.
The applicant is in jail since 22.02.2021 pursuant to the said F.I.R.
Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant contends the applicant was granted bail by this Court on 26.10.2015. Thereafter the applicant left his home town in search of livelihood. The applicant was living in some other city all these years. Due to a communication gap between the applicant and his counsel, he could not participate in court proceedings. It is also submitted that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and undertakes to cooperate in the court proceedings. Lastly it is submitted by Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma, 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 merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Yogendra Thakur be released on bail in Case Crime No.700 of 2015 at Police Station- Sadabad, District- Hathras under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, 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 :- 21.5.2021 Nadeem Ahmad Digitally signed by Justice Ajay Bhanot Date: 2021.05.23 15:53:37 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

Yogendra Thakur vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
21 May, 2021
Judges
  • Ajay Bhanot
Advocates
  • Rahul Kumar Sharma