Allowed

Fajlu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2020BAIL/15823/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the U.P. Gangsters Act, the High Court of Allahabad released the applicant on bail by personal bond, deferring the requirement of sureties until normal court functioning is restored, while relying on Article 21 and Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond without sureties; condition to furnish sureties within one month of restoration of normal court functioning.

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

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15823 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Fajlu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Avanish Pratap Singh,Udai Bhan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A..

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Fajlu, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 477 of 2019, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Fatehpur, District- Saharanpur, during pendency of trial.

¶7

According to the gang chart the applicant is said to have been involved in one criminal case in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. The applicant alleges false implication in the present case due to police rivalry. He is languishing in jail since 13.02.2020.

¶8

Having considered the material on record, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 that :-

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being

¶12

released on bail.

¶13

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.

¶14

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 9.7.2020

¶19

Atul kr. sri.

¶20

Digitally signed by JUSTICE SIDDHARTH Date: 2020.07.09 17:59:53 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Fajlu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fajlu 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

Palla Vs State of Up

Mahesh Pandit Vs State of U.P.

Kallu @ Dharmveer and Anr. Vs State of U.P.

Ankur Singhal Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Ram Ratan Vs State of U.P.