Allowed

Rashid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2018BAIL/45233/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the U.P. Gangsters and ACSP Act, the High Court granted bail to the accused. The order imposed strict conditions regarding adjournments, attendance, and failure to appear, including directives to invoke specific IPC and Cr.P.C. provisions. The court also directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously within six months.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond with two heavy sureties (one family member) subject to strict conditions of attendance and no-adjournment.

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

¶1

Court No. - 62

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45233 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rashid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amit Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that only three cases have been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart which have been annexed at page-22 of the bail application and in the said cases, the applicant has been granted bail by the competent Court. The applicant is in jail since 14.08.2018.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of submissions advanced and the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, let the applicant Rashid involved in Case Crime No.174 of 2018, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station G.R.P., District Saharanpur be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two heavy sureties each (One should be of a family member) in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following condition:-

¶9

(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.

¶10

(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 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

(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. 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(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 him in accordance with law.

¶13

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶14

Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Shahroz

Rashid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid 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

Parvej Vs State of U.P.

Ibrahim Vs State of U.P.

Waseem @ Dakhni Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay @ Suleman Vs State of U.P.

Amar Chand Vs State of U.P.