The Allahabad High Court has allowed the bail application of Anand Yadav, a representative of Mau MLA Mukhtar Ansari.
A single-judge bench of Justice Krishan Pahal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Anand Yadav.
The applicant sought bail in case under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau, during pendency of trial.
As per the prosecution story, the applicant along with the other co-accused persons is said to have duped the State Exchequer of Rs 30 lakh.
The counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated out of political rivalry, with a view to cause harassment and to victimize him.
He has further stated that the accused along with his co-accused father, namely, Baijnath Yadav, were enlarged on anticipatory bail being Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CrPC order dated June 23, 2021 passed by a coordinate Bench of the Court.
It is further argued that the applicant and his father are responsible persons in the society. His father is said to be the manager of the said institution.
It is further stated that the applicant has a criminal history of two cases and has been acquitted in both cases. The said acquittal order has not even been challenged in any superior court. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.The applicant is in jail since June 28, 2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Vinod Kant, the Additional Advocate General, opposed the bail application on the ground that the charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicant and there is enough oral and documentary evidence against him. The father-son duo have usurped the money of the State Exchequer in connivance with the local MLA. The applicant was the representative of MLA Mukhtar Ansari.
“Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of UP and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail,”
-the Court observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered, “Let the applicant Anand Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties are verified.
(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.
(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 229-A IPC.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., 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 174-A IPC.
(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 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.