Allowed

Km Pinki v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2019BAIL/10636/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10636 of 2019, the Court allowed bail to applicant Km Pinki, charged under the U.P. Gangsters Act. The Court found it to be a case of bail despite allegations of false implication, subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and conduct to prevent abuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Accused enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties serving the like amount on the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

Km Pinki Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10636 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Km Pinki Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary Affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant annexing therewith certified copy of the First Information Report and bail orders is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Pandey, 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 is a lady and 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 four 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 3 of 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 12.12.2018, undertakes that she 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- Km.Pinki, involved in Case Crime No. 291 of 2018, under Section- 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- G.R.P. Junction, Bareilly, DistrictBareilly, be enlarged on bail on her executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(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.

¶15

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 her 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 :- 14.3.2019

¶18

ssm

Km Pinki v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km Pinki 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

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Avneesh Kathariya Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Taufiq Vs State of U.P.

Iqbal Vs State of U.P.

Akash Vs State of U.P.