Allowed

Sanju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2018BAIL/32111/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32111 of 2018, the Court allowed bail for the applicant Sanju, who was opposed to an offence under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, subject to specific conditions including furnishing sureties and not tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each on specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32111 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sanju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that according to gang chart, two cases had been shown against accused applicant and he is on bail. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 13.9.2017 (near about eleven and half months) and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. It is further submitted that no bail cancellation application has been moved till today regarding the cases shown in the gang chart.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and admitted that there is no criminal history against the applicant except the gang chart and further he could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release of the accused in U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties 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 bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let the applicant Sanju involved in Case Crime No. 742 of 2017, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Jalesar, District - Etah be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶10

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶11

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶12

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶13

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶14

The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶16

Order Date :- 23.8.2018

¶17

A. Singh

Sanju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamshed Vs State of U.P.

Tausif Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Mithun Paswan Vs State of U.P.