Allowed

Shivam Katheriya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2019BAIL/36157/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the court released the applicant on personal and surety bonds subject to strict conditions regarding trial conduct and non-interference, distinguishing earlier precedents.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding trial conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36157 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shivam Katheriya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Shivam Katheriya with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.255 of 2019, under Sections 3 (1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Kannauj, District- Kannauj, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case for the purpose of harassment. False and fabricated prosecution story has been made by the police.

¶8

He further submitted that in the gang chart, two cases have been shown against the accused-applicant and in which, the applicant is on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.07.2019. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions that :-

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence

¶12

by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶16

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.9.2019 SFH

Shivam Katheriya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Katheriya 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

Virendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kailash Vs State of U.P.

Jaheer Vs State of U.P.

Tuhina Vs State of U.P.

Deepak @ Bhirda Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.