Allowed

Rajendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2019BAIL/47357/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a bail application in a matter under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Act. The applicant alleged false implication. The High Court, by a larger mandate relying on Article 21 and case law, granted bail with specific conditions to prevent witness tampering and future crimes.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding conduct and non-tampering.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47357 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Rajendra with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 168 of 2019, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act , Police Station Hafizganj, District- Bareilly , during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to the gang chart the applicant is said to have been involved in two criminal cases in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. The applicant is not a member of any gang. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.08.2019 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the applicant is a member of gang and habitual of committing crime. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar anti-social activities and will misuse the bail by extending threat and intimidation to the prosecution witnesses.

¶9

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 that :-

¶10

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the

¶11

investigation or trial.

¶12

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶13

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶15

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.11.2019 AKT

Rajendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Israr Quraisi Vs State of U.P.

Akeel Vs State of U.P.

Deen Bandhu Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Naeem Vs State of Up

Harpal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Alias Swami Vs State of U.P.