Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2020BAIL/11149/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This chamber order granted bail to Mohd. Aasif and Mohd Sohail in a U.P. Gangsters Act case, releasing them on a personal bond during active lockdown. The court directed them to submit two sureties within four weeks of lockdown lifting and imposed strict conditions to ensure trial attendance, prevent intimidation of witnesses, and prohibit further criminal activity.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail conditioned on personal bond during lockdown and furnishing two sureties within four weeks of lockdown lifting along with certified copies of the order.

Mohd. Aasif and Another Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11149 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Aasif And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi 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 applicants, Mohd. Aasif and Mohd Sohail, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 02 of 2020, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Rajpur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

According to the gang chart, the applicants are said to have been involved in one criminal case in which they have already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. There is no other criminal history mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicants allege false implication in the present case due to police rivalry. He is languishing in jail since 13.01.2020.

¶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 applicants 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 applicants be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond only to the satisfaction of the jail authorities, where the applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants.

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶18

In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The applicants 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 their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶20

In case the applicants have been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court their 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 :- 16.4.2020 Rmk.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Aasif and Another 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

Suresh Kumar Pathak and Another Vs State of U.P.

Azeem Vs State of U.P.

Raju @ Raja Vs State of U.P.

Abrar Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Shakya Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Gyas Vs State of U.P.