Allowed

Kuldeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2019BAIL/10095/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to Kuldeep under the U.P. Gangsters Act. The bench found the case suitable for bail relief regarding complicity and reformative theory without adjudicating the main case merits, subjecting the applicant to strict conditions of appearance and denial of adjournment.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged the applicant on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. One Lac each, subject to conditions of appearance and no adjournment.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10095 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Kuldeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary Affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive of the police concerned, the applicant is neither gang leader nor member of any Gang. It is next contended that two cases have been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart and in the said case/cases, the applicant has been granted bail which has been properly explained in paragraph 7 and 8 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is also contended that apart from cases shown in gang chart applicant is on bail which has been explained in the Supplementary Affidavit filed today in this case. It is further contended that there is no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant who is in jail since 11.12.2018, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶8

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

¶9

Keeping in view the submissions advanced and the provisions for Section 19 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,1986, evidence, complicity of the accused, reformative theory of punishment , and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Let the applicant-Kuldeep, involved in Case Crime No.397 of 2018, under Section- 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- G.R.P. Moradabad, District- Moradabad, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties (Rs. One Lac each) (One should be of a family member) before the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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

¶13

Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 13.3.2019

¶19

ssm

Kuldeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep 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

Shahnawaj Vs State of U.P.

Irfan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P.

Rajneesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Abdul Kalam Vs State of U.P.

Ram Mahesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Avneesh Kathariya Vs State of U.P.