Allowed

Mohd. Umar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2019BAIL/5948/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, Mohd. Umar, in a case under U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986. Bail was subject to stringent conditions regarding court attendance and consequences for misuse, including proclamation and arrest proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged on bail upon executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties of Rs. One Lac each, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and consequences for default.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5948 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Umar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that two 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 5 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is further submitted that criminal history of the applicant has properly been explained in para 3 to the supplementary affidavit and para 6 to the rejoinder affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 15.12.2018.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

Let the applicant- Mohd. Umar involved in Case Crime No. 841 of 2018, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur 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:-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶12

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

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.3.2019 Arti

Mohd. Umar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Umar 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

Nazim and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Anamulla @ Abdulla Vs State of U.P.

Naushad Vs State of U.P.

Monu Bansal Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Tamanna @ Kallo Vs State of U.P.

Anvar Vs State of U.P.