Allowed

Shoeb Ahmad Alias Raju Khan and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2019BAIL/10570/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicants in a case under the U.P. Gangsters Act, relying on the reformative theory of punishment and finding the case to be a bail case subject to strict conditional bonds.

What did the court decide?

Akins shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding court appearance and specific undertakings.

Shoeb Ahmad Alias Raju Khan and Another Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10570 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shoeb Ahmad Alias Raju Khan And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bratendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bratendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not committed the alleged offence. It is next contended that eight cases have been shown against the applicants in the Gang Chart and in the said cases applicants have been granted bail which has been properly explained in paragraph 6 to 13, of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is further contended that co-accused namely Anuj Kumar has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.7.2018 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 26351 of 2018 (a copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-10 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application) and the case of the applicants stand on identical footing, hence applicants are entitled to bail. It is further contended that there is no possibility of applicants either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicants who are in jail since 1.3.2018, undertakes that they 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 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.

¶9

Let the applicants Shoeb Ahmad alias Raju Khan and Furkhan Khan, involved in Case Crime No. 613 of 2018, under Section- 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Mainpuri, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under

¶12

Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicants 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.

¶15

If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 12.3.2019

¶18

ssm

Shoeb Ahmad Alias Raju Khan and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoeb Ahmad Alias Raju Khan and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monu Bansal Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Tamanna @ Kallo Vs State of U.P.

Anvar Vs State of U.P.

Shahnawaj Vs State of U.P.

Irfan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P.

Rajneesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.