Allowed

Sandeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2019BAIL/5854/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court Court No. 69 granted bail to the applicant in a Gangster Case under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, imposing strict conditions regarding attendance, adjournments, and presence during trial stages, with specific penalties for default.

What did the court decide?

Gross bail granted on personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 1 lac each, subject to strict conditions of attendance and no abuse of bail.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5854 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Poonam Singh Sengar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that three cases have been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart which has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and in the said case, the applicant has been granted bail by the competent Court, the said fact has been mentioned in para 8, 9 and 10 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. The applicant is in jail since 13.01.2019.

¶7

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

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of submissions advanced and the provisions for initiation of cases and release of the accused in U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986 evidence complicity of the accused severity of punishment and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶9

Let the applicant- Sandeep involved in Case Crime No. 0907 of 2018, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties (Rs. One Lac each) (One should be of a family member) , each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following condition:-

¶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 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.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case

¶12

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 :- 1.3.2019 Arti

Sandeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep 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

Sudhakar Dixit Vs State of U.P.

Vikash Vs State of U.P.

Arun Pal @ Chumman Pal Vs State of U.P.

Lavi Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Asif Vs State of U.P.

Hari Verma @ Hariya Vs State of U.P.