Bhim v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
In a bail application under the U.P. Gangster (Prevention) Act, the High Court found it a fit case for bail despite not expressing an opinion on merits, directing release on personal bond and sureties.
What did the court decide?
Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses.
What the court decided
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41293 of 2019
Applicant :- Bhim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that three cases have been shown in the gang chart against the applicant in which he has been granted bail and on the basis of those cases the gangster Act has been slapped upon the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 9.5.2019.
Per contra, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Bhim involved in Case Crime No. 582 of 2019, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities ( Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur 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:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is fit for bail despite being charged under the U.P. Gangster (Prevention) Act.
Whether the applicant can be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and sureties.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Bhim
- respondent
State Of U.P.
Coram
Bachchoo Lal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/41293/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court