Allahabad High Court
Sadhu Yadav @ Veerendra Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko on 1 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17927
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2599 of 2025
Applicant :- Sadhu Yadav @ Veerendra Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 7 of 2025, under Section 2/3 U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S.- Maholi, District Sitapur
3. It has been submitted that as per gang chart, applicant is shown involved in three cases bearing case crime Nos.444 of 2024, under Section 303(2)/317(2) BNS, P.S. Maholi, District Sitapur; case crime Nos.522 of 2024, under Section 303(2)/317(2) BNS, P.S. Maholi, District Sitapur and case crime Nos.532 of 2024, under Section 303(2)/351(2)/317(2) BNS, P.S. Maholi, District Sitapur in which applicant has already been enlarged on bail by trial court in bail application Nos. 1529 of 2024, 1535 of 2024 and 1534 of 2024 which have been brought on record.
4. It is submitted that apart from aforesaid three cases, the applicant is shown involved in three other cases, the details of which have been indicated in supplementary affidavit with bail orders being annexed thereto.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the aforesaid fact.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicant has already been enlarged on bail in all the cases filed against him as averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application and therefore conditions indicated in Section 19(4) of U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 stand complied with at this stage, therefore the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Sadhu Yadav @ Veerendra Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) is issued and 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 209 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
(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 351 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 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.
Order Date :- 1.4.2025
prabhat
