Allowed

Mustkeem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2019BAIL/27801/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant, Mustkeem, who was accused under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence, cooperation in trial, and non-offending.

Mustkeem Vs State of U.P. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27801 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mustkeem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh,B.N.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri B.N.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Nitin Agrawal, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to the gang chart the applicant is said to have been involved in only one criminal case in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. He has falsely been implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. He is not a member of any gang. It has been further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that applicant has gained any undue temporal pecuniary material for himself or any other person by Gangster and Anti Social Activities acts. It is also submitted that there is no report of District Magistrate/Special Court on record regarding acquisition of any movable or immovable property by the applicant. It was next submitted that the provisions of the Act has been used against the applicant like a weapon to harass and intimidate the innocent applicant. There is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.06.2018. In case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶7

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the applicant is a member of gang and habitual of committing crime. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar anti-social activities and will misuse the bail by extending threat and intimidation to the prosecution witnesses.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant-Mustkeem involved in Case Crime No.569 of 2018, under Section 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social

¶9

Activities Prevention Act, 1986, Police Station-Jalaun, District-Jalaun be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶10

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶11

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶12

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶13

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.7.2019

¶15

Pr/-

Mustkeem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustkeem 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

Guddu Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Jubair Ahamad Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Vs State of U.P.

Nem Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Arun Vs State of U.P.

Azad Urf Ajjoo Vs State of U.P.