Sanjay Yadav v. State of U.P

Court No. -5 Case :-CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. -40326 of 2023 Applicant :-Sanjay Yadav Opposite Party :-State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :-Praveen Kumar Singh,Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :-G.A. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected on 17.11.2022. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 32 of 2021, under Sections 143, 504, 506, 386, 120 B IPC, Police Station-Jahanaganj , District -Azamgarh. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that the incident took place on 8.2.2021 however the FIR was lodged on 9.2.2021 with due deliberation in order to falsely implicate the applicant. He further submits that the applicant was having criminal history of 33 cases which has been duly explained in para 14 of this bail application and it has been averred that in all the cases registered against the applicant, either the proceedings have been stopped or the applicant was granted bail. It is stated that after taking note of entire facts and circumstances of the case, co-accused, namely, Shiv Prakash Yadav , has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 5.4.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46341 of 2021. He relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 in which the Apex Court has held that pendency of criminal cases cannot be the basis of refusal of the prayer for bail. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, applicant may flee from the course of law or may, otherwise, misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is in jail since 1.4.2021 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is very bleak as about nine months have been passed by passing of the order dated 17.11.2022 but till date no evidence has been recorded. Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in mind that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let applicant namely Sanjay Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that applicant 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.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against applicant under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure presence of the applicant, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against the applicant, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against the applicant in accordance with law. Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail. The bail application stands disposed of finally. Order Date :- 28.11.2023 Rahul Dwivedi/- (Piyush Agrawal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad