Allowed

Waseem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2018BAIL/45735/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the court enlarged the applicant on bail. The relief was granted by the execution of a personal bond and furnishing heavy sureties subject to specific conditions regarding appearance and non-abuse of bail liberty.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of the applicant on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two heavy sureties subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 62

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45735 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Waseem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Thakur Prasad Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today in Court. The same is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Thakur Prasad Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the order dated 06.02.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2728 of 2018.

¶7

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 has been annexed at page-15 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 22.07.2017.

¶8

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

¶9

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 Waseem involved in Case Crime No.422 of 2018, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two heavy sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following condition:-

¶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. 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.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.11.2018

¶15

Shahroz

Waseem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waseem 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.

Munna Vs State of U.P.

Ramu Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Zakir Vs State of U.P.