Partly allowed

Faizan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2019BAIL/6651/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 61 of 2018 under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The grant was subject to a personal bond, two family sureties of Rs. 1 lakh each, and stringent conditions regarding attendance and conduct during trial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties of Rs. 1 lakh each, subject to strict conditions of attendance and conduct.

Faizan Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6651 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Faizan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that only five case has been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart which has been annexed at page-22 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 5.1.2019.

¶7

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

¶8

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- Faizan involved in Case Crime No.61 of 2018, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Police Station-Gagalhedi, District Saharanpur be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties (of Rs. one lakh) (one should be of family member) , each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following condition:-

¶9

(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.

¶10

(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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

Order Date :- 29.3.2019 Dev/-

Faizan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faizan 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

Ibrahim Vs State of U.P.

Faisal Vs State of U.P.

Meharban @ Rabbal Vs State of U.P.

Avid Vs State of U.P.

Sheebu Vs State of U.P.

Sarwar @ Titu Vs State of U.P.