This judgment grants bail to the applicant, Sintu @ Mithilesh, invoked under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The court imposed strict conditions regarding court appearances and conduct.
Relief granted on the applicant executing a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions of attendance and conduct.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8553 of 2019
Applicant :- Sintu @ Mithilesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pati Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
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 in the said case/cases, the applicant has been granted bail which has been properly explained in paragraph 7, of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. 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 29.12.2018, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer but has not disputed the aforesaid fact.
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.
Let the applicant- Sintu alias Mithilesh, involved in Case Crime No. 380 of 2018, under Section- 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Saraikhwaja, 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:-
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019
ssm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail is maintainable in a case involving the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Sintu @ Mithilesh
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
