Allowed

Mohammad Aslam and 5 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2019BAIL/4718/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to Mohammad Aslam and five others charged under the U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986, finding it a bail case despite no opinion on merits. The applicants were ordered to execute a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to strict conditions regarding court appearances and avoiding abuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Applicants enlarged on bail by executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Mohammad Aslam and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4718 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Aslam And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have not committed the alleged offence. It is next contended that only one case has been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart (Annexure- 2 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application) and in the said case, applicants have been granted bail which has been properly explained in paragraph 2 of the Supplementary Affidavit filed today in this case. Further submission is that there is also no possibility of applicants either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicants who are in jail since 21.11.2018, undertake that they will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer but has not disputed the aforesaid fact.

¶9

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.

¶10

Let the applicants- Mohammad Aslam, Visarat, Shaukat Ali, Nasir, Sharafat son of Asgar and Sharafat son of Raheem Bux, involved in Case Crime No. 259 of 2018, under Section- 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Badhapur, District- Bijnor, be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them 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 their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, 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.

¶15

If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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 :- 1.2.2019

¶18

ssm

Mohammad Aslam and 5 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Aslam and 5 Others 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

Mahatab Vs State of U.P.

Ikbal Khapara Vs State of U.P.

Harsh Chaudhari Vs State of U.P.

Nawab Vs State of U.P.

Shyamji Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Gautam Vs State of U.P.