Allowed

Lakhan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2019BAIL/23636/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, the High Court granted bail to the applicant asserting desert due to severity of punishment and lack of flight risk, without commenting on case merits, subject to standard conditions and an expedited trial order.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail with personal bond, two reliable sureties, and undertaking, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, cooperating with trial, and abstainin

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23636 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Lakhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gauri Shanker Mishra,Mohd. Arshad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No. 0040 of 2019, under Section 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Sansi Gate, District Aligarh, applied for bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of enmity for the purpose of harassment. Applicant committed no offence. A false and fabricated story has been set up by the police. He further submits that in all five cases shown in gang chart against the accusedapplicant, the court concerned has already decided these cases. Applicant is in jail since 18.1.2018. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that applicant is a member of gang, having five cases against him, as shown in gang chart.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of applicant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction, number of cases shown in gang chart and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail.

¶10

Accordingly, bail application is allowed .

¶11

Let applicant Lakhan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶13

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶14

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.

¶15

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶16

However, it is provided that Trial Court shall expedite and conclude the trial within one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment, if there is no legal impediment. Order Date :- 17.9.2019 SKS

Lakhan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Tahir Vs State of U.P.

Bilkish Vs State of U.P.

Arman Alias Faijan Vs State of U.P.

Javed Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.