Allowed

Saleem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Mar 2019BAIL/13072/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant charged under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Act. The court found it a bail case despite the serious nature of the charge, citing the reformative theory of punishment and lack of flight risk or witness tampering possibilities. Strict conditions regarding court attendance and avoidance of adjournments were imposed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition of adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13072 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Saleem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bharat Singh Pal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

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 three cases have been shown against the applicant in the FIR/Gang Chart and in the said cases and in other case also applicant has been granted bail which has been properly explained in paragraph 6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is further contended that co- accused Parvez having similar role has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.10.2017 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 38226 of 2017 a copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application and applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. 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 11.1.2017, undertakes that he 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 applicant- Saleem, involved in Case Crime No.37 of 2017, under Section- 3 (1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Ghorawal, District- Sonebhadra, 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 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

¶12

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 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.

¶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 him 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 :- 30.3.2019

¶18

ssm

Saleem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem 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

Sheebu Vs State of U.P.

Sarwar @ Titu Vs State of U.P.

Faizan Vs State of U.P.

Azhar Vs State of U.P.

Harvir Alias Takkey Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Vs State of U.P.