Allowed

Sudhakar Dixit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2019BAIL/7407/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under the U.P. Gangsters Act, the court granted bail to the applicant, observing that the case fits the bail criteria under Section 19 of the Act despite the stringent provisions, noting parity with a co-accused who was already granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the applicant be enlarged on bail by executing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions of availability and non-misuse of liberty.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7407 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sudhakar Dixit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar,Dharmendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary Affidavit dated 23.2.2019 has been filed in this case is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not committed the alleged offence. It is next contended that only one case has been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart and the same has been explained in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is next contended that criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the Supplementary Affidavit filed today and earlier in this case. It is further contended that co-accused namely Alok Dixit, has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.9.2018 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 34802 of 2017, (a copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record), it is also contended that the case of the applicant stands on identical footing and is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. Further submission is that there is also no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant who is in jail since 6.1.2016, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer but has not disputed the aforesaid fact.

¶9

Keeping in view the submissions advanced and the provisions for Section 19 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,1986, evidence, complicity of the accused, reformative theory 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- Sudhakar Dixit, involved in Case Crime No. 443 of 2016, under Section- 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Rampur, District- Jaunpur, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶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.

¶15

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 court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 28.2.2019 ssm

Sudhakar Dixit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Dixit 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

Amee Khan Vs State of U.P.

Mumtaz Vs State of U.P.

Shanu @ Badshah @ Majid Vs State of U.P.

Vikash Vs State of U.P.

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

Shiv Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.