Partly allowed

Munna v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2018BAIL/45645/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was filed by Munna, accused under U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The High Court granted bail contingent upon execution of a personal bond with sureties and strict adherence to listing conditions, finding prima facie support for bail release.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to personal bond, two sureties, and strict conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition of adjournments.

Munna Vs State of U.P. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 62

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45645 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Munna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kr. Srivastava,Maheep Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Maheep Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not committed the alleged offence. It is next contended that only one case has been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart which has been annexed as Annexure- 1 along with the FIR to the affidavit filed in support of bail application and in the said cases, the applicant has been granted bail which has been explained in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. Further submission is that there is also no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant who is in jail since 27.10.2018, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer but has not disputed the aforesaid fact.

¶8

Keeping in view the submissions advanced and the provisions for initiation of cases and release of the accused in U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,1986, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, reformative theory of punishment , and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶9

Let the applicant- Munna, involved in Case Crime No. 406 of 2018, under Section- 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Kithore, District- Meerut, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and ( two heavy sureties one should be of a family member) before the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶10

(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.

¶11

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

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.

¶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 :- 29.11.2018

¶17

ssm

Munna v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna 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

Guddu Dome Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.

Suleman @ Khotiya Vs State of U.P.

Ramu Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Zakir Vs State of U.P.

Waseem Vs State of U.P.