Allowed

Mohd Arif v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2018BAIL/5241/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Court granted bail to the applicant under the U.P. Gangster Act, noting he was already on bail for the specific cases constituting the gangster charge and is a patient of cancer.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions on witness tampering, court attendance, and monthly police station reporting.

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

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5241 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd Arif Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Gupta,Ram Mohan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 01/2017, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Nawabganj, District Allahabad, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are that Gangster Act has been imposed on him only on the basis of two cases and in all two cases, he is on bail, which is evident from bail order annexed as Annexures -3 and 4 of the affidavit in support of the bail application. He further submits that so far as other eight criminal cases are concerned, the applicant is on bail in Case Crime No. 270 of 2008, under Sections 302, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nawabganj, District Allahabad and in Case Crime No. 278 of 2008, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Nawabganj, District Allahababd as is evident from Annexures 2 and 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is patient of Cancer as is evident from Annexure-6, he is in jail since 08.01.2017. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that the applicant has criminal history of eight cases but has fairly conceded that Gangster Act has been imposed on the applicant on the basis of two cases in which he is already on bail.

¶9

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, ground that Gangster

¶10

Act has been imposed on the applicant on the basis of two cases in which he is on bail as well as totality of fact and circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Let applicant Mohd Arif be released on bail in Case Crime No. 01/2017, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Nawabganj, District Allahabad, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶12

(1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

(2) Applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.

¶14

(3) Applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶15

(4) During pendency of the aforesaid case, the applicant shall appear on 20th of each month before the Police Station concerned to get his attendance registered.

¶16

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶17

A copy of this order shall be provided to the Government Advocate for information and necessary compliance.

¶18

Order Date :- 20.3.2018

¶19

Monika

Mohd Arif v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Arif 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

Asif and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pintu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dhirendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Chaubey Vs State of U.P.

Talib Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kaushar Vs State of U.P.