Allowed

Jitendra Kunchabadhiya and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2019BAIL/42822/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to applicants accused under U.P. Gangster Act, directing furnishing of personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions regarding court attendance and prevention of abuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of like amount, subject to specific conditions of attendance and undertaking.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42822 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra Kunchabadhiya And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, 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 applicants, Jitendra Kunchabadhiya and Shyam Kunchabadhiya with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 304 of 2019, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986, Police StationRath, District- Hamirpur , during pendency of trial.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case for the purpose of harassment. False and fabricated prosecution story has been made by the police. There is no reliable evidence against the applicants. It is next argued that in the gang chart, two cases are shown against the applicant no.1 and three cases are shown against the applicant no.2. It is further argued that the applicants have already been enlarged on bail in all the above cases, copy of the bail orders have been enclosed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. It is further submitted that apart from the cases shown in the gang chart, the applicants have no criminal history. The applicants are languishing in jail since 02.08.2019. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants but he could not dispute the factual submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9

Considering the nature of offence, provision for initiation of cases and release of the accused in U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention Act), material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the

¶10

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 applicants involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their 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

(i) The applicants 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.

¶12

(ii) The applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants 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

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶16

Order Date :- 23.10.2019 JK Yadav

Jitendra Kunchabadhiya and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kunchabadhiya and Another 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

Sampurnanad Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sujit Singh @ Pahalvan Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Alias Mama Vs State of U.P.

Govind Jaisawal Vs Union of India

Pawan Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P.

Mithlesh Singh Vs State of U.P.