Allowed

Qayyum v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2019BAIL/4121/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4121 of 2019, the Court granted bail to applicant Qayyum, arrested under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, subject to personal bond and two sureties of Rs. One Lac each, along with strict conditions regarding court appearances and misuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Qayyum enlarged on bail on executing personal bond and two sureties of Rs. One Lac each each before the court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4121 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Qayyum Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, 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 and he has not committed the alleged offence. It is next contended that only one case has been shown against the applicant in the FIR/Gang Chart (Annexure- 1, to the affidavit filed in support of bail application) and in the said case/cases, the applicant has been granted bail which has been properly explained in paragraph 5, of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. Further submission is that there is also no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant who is in jail since 15.12.2018, 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- Qayyum involved in Case Crime No.601 of 2018, under Section- 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Qutubsher, District- Saharanpur, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties (Rs. One Lac each) (One should be of a family member) before 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 Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(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

¶13

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 :- 11.2.2019 ssm

Qayyum v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Qayyum 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

Jakir Vs State of U.P.

Gajendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Dalu Vs State of U.P.

Aziz Nat Vs State of U.P.

Dev Singh Vs State of U.P.

Monu Ojha Vs State of U.P.