Allowed

Madanpal @ Kunju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2018BAIL/19801/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the High Court reduced the applicant, a non-violent offender from other charges, to bail under the U.P. Gangsters Act, directing him to furnish a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in Case Crime No. 1452/2016 under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 by furnishing personal bond and two sureties.

Madanpal @ Kunju Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19801 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Madanpal @ Kunju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Umeshkumar Mishra,Mithilesh Kumar Mishra,Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant has been made accused in this case on the basis of single case shown in the gang chart as Case Crime No. 952/2016 under Sections 392, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar. In that case, applicant has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.10.2016 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35027/2016, copy of annexed as Annexure-3 to this affidavit. He has been made accused in other case, under Section 25 Arms Act, in which he is on bail. Applicant is not involved in Case Crime No. 252/2016, under Sections 392 & 411 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar. Applicant is languishing in jail since 11.04.2018.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and contended that there are two more cases pending against applicant.

¶8

There is no evidence on record to show that the applicant was indulged in activity with violence or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion and such activity has been done with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Madanpal @ Kunju be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1452/2016, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.

¶11

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.7.2018 Sharad/-

Madanpal @ Kunju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madanpal @ Kunju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kripal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kallu @ Rakesh Shivhare Vs State of U.P.

Tinku Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shera @ Sher Singh @ Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Nek Pal Vs State of U.P.