Allowed

Siraj Mawaniya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2020BAIL/10299/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a bail application filed by Siraj Mawaniya charged under U.P. Gaming and Anti-Social Activities Act. Granted bail subject to a personal bond due to lockdown, with a direction to provide two sureties within four weeks of lockdown lifting. Imposed strict conditions regarding presence in court and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond with direction to furnish two sureties within four weeks of lockdown lifting upon resumption of courts.

Siraj Mawaniya Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10299 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Siraj Mawaniya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Zakir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

This bail application is being disposed of during the lock down period as per the order dated 04.04.2020 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

¶6

Earlier vide order dated 18.3.2020, the Court had granted three weeks time to the learned A.G.A. to file written objection/counter affidavit, but no counter affidavit has been filed till date.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Siraj Mawaniya , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 587 of 2019, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Gulaothi, District Bulandshahr.

¶8

According to the gang chart, the applicant is said to have been involved in two criminal cases in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, it is mentioned that he was also implicated in four other cases in which he has already been enlarged on bail. The applicant alleges false implication in the present case due to police rivalry. He is languishing in jail since 13.02.2020.

¶9

Considering the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail subject to the following conditions :-

¶10

1.Considering the special circumstances of the lock-down prevailing in the district concerned presently and in the light of the directions of this Court in PIL No. 564 of 2020 dated 06.04.2020, let the applicant be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond only to the satisfaction of the jail authorities, where the applicant is languishing. It is further directed that within period of four weeks from the date of lifting of the complete lock-down in the district concerned resulting in resumption of normal functioning of the Courts in that district, the applicant shall furnish two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned alongwith certified copy of this order, failing which the bail

¶11

granted by this Court shall stand cancelled necessitating the surrender of the applicant.

¶12

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶13

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶15

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶16

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶17

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 229A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶18

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶19

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.4.2020 Rmk.

Siraj Mawaniya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siraj Mawaniya 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abrar Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Aasif and Another Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Shakya Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Verma Vs State of U.P.

Purushottam @ Mulloo Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Naveen Goyal Vs State of U.P.