Allowed

Ajeet Kumar Sharma @ Ranjan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2020BAIL/12063/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to applicant in FIR under UP Gangster Act. Applicant alleged false implication and sought relief from personal bond due to lockdown. Court imposed conditions including attendance and prohibition of adjournments, allowing execution via personal bond under PIL guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Relief allowed. Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions imposed.

Ajeet Kumar Sharma @ Ranjan Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12063 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Sharma @ Ranjan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- J.B. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

This bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.1408 of 2019, under Section 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangster & Anti Social (Prevention) Activities Act, 1986, Police Station Phase-III, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶6

According to the gang chart annexed with the First Information Report the applicant is said to have been involved in Case Crime No.943 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 34 IPC, Police Station Phase-III Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

No objection has been filed on behalf of the State.

¶8

It is urged on behalf of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and is not a member of any organized gang. It is also pointed out that the applicant in Case Crime No.943 of 2019 has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.47645 of 2019 vide order dated 13.2.2020, perusal whereof would go to show that allegation against the applicant was that he had helped the co-accused Manoj Kumar Thakur in getting accounts opened and providing him space for office. Gang leader allegedly is one Manoj Kumar Thakur. It is submitted that the role assigned to the applicant in the instant case is of assisting the co-accused Manoj Kumar Thakur in getting the accounts opened and providing him space for office. Submission is that except the aforesaid cases, there is no other criminal history of the applicant and he has been falsely implicated for extraneous reasons. The applicant is languishing in jail since 8.8.2019 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Perused the record and rejection order passed by the court below. Apart from the implication in the aforesaid cases, there is no other prima facie material disclosed in the First Information Report which may demonstrate that the applicant is

¶10

a member of any organized gang which is involved in antisocial activities.

¶11

Let the applicant Ajeet Kumar Sharma @ Ranjan involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶18

(vii) 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.

¶19

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed

¶20

in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.

¶21

The order reads thus:

¶22

"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accusedapplicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."

¶23

Order Date :- 15.4.2020 Ashok Kr.

Ajeet Kumar Sharma @ Ranjan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet Kumar Sharma @ Ranjan 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

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rekha Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dhirendra Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shubham Pal @ Krishna Pal Vs State of U.P.

Sangam Gaur Vs State of U.P.

Akash Solanki Vs State of U.P.