Allowed

Munna Saroj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2019BAIL/4208/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J. granted bail to the applicant Munna Saroj in a case under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions for trial attendance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4208 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Munna Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri R.C.Upadhyay, 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 1 case has been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart annexed as Annexure-2, page 19 to the bail application and he is on bail in this case,which has been properly explained in paragraph no. 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It is pointed out by the learned AGA that the applicant has two more criminal cases to which learned counsel for the applicants replied that the applicant is on bail in these two cases. 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 3.10.2018.

¶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- Munna Saroj involved in Case Crime No.230 of 2018, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Gaurabadshahpur, District Jaunpur be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in 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

¶11

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.

¶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 :- 20.2.2019 IA

Munna Saroj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Saroj 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

Farman Vs State of U.P.

Umar Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Ikrar Vs State of U.P.

Farid Vs State of U.P.

Mubssir Vs State of U.P.