Allowed

Raju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2019BAIL/3587/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Honourable Vivek Kumar Singh, J. granted bail to the applicant, Raju, who was falsely implicated in a case under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The court imposed personal bond and heavy local sureties conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on bail by executing personal bond and furnishing two heavy local sureties subject to specific conditions of presence and conduct during trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3587 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Juned Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Juned Alam, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive by the police in order to show their good work and he has committed no offence. It has been next contended that only 2 cases have been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart annexed as Annexure-2, page 14 to the bail application and he is on bail in these cases, which has been properly explained in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.9.2018.Co-accused Jameel Khan and the applicant have already been released on bail on 25.1.2019 by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3698 of 2019.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment, and also considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of submissions advanced and the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, let the applicant- Raju involved in Case Crime No. 473 of 2018, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Kotwali Hata, District Kushi Nagar be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two heavy local sureties each n the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the 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

¶11

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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 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. 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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 15.2.2019 IA

Raju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju 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

Mahboob Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kamil Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar @ Raju Vs State of U.P.

Kurban Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.