Allowed

Faisal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2019BAIL/5809/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the U.P. Gangsters Act, the High Court enlarged the applicant on bail after examining submissions. The court imposed strict conditions regarding attendance, avoiding adjournments, and consequences for misuse of bail.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of bail on personal bond and two heavy sureties (one family member) subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and prohibition on adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5809 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Faisal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra Pandey,Pradeep Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. today in the Court is taken on record.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit-II filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court is also taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶9

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that only five cases have been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart which has been annexed at page-20 of the bail application and in the said cases, the applicant has been granted bail by the competent Court. The applicant is in jail since 7.1.2019.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

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- Faisal involved in Case Crime No.1367 of 2018, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station-Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two heavy sureties (one should be of family member) , each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following condition:-

¶12

(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 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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

Order Date :- 28.3.2019 Dev/-

Faisal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faisal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navin Nishchal Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs Narcotc Control Bureau Lucknow

Wazid Vs State of U.P.

Ibrahim Vs State of U.P.

Meharban @ Rabbal Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P.