Allowed

Anjan Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2020BAIL/25143/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to Anjan Kumar Singh under the U.P. Gangsters Act during trial proceedings. Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to ensure presence and prevent witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to additional conditions of appearance and conduct.

Anjan Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25143 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Anjan Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Yadav,Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 31 of 2020, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Singramau, District Jaunpur, during pendency of trial.

¶7

To press the bail application of the applicant, it is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the basis of implication of the applicant under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act is the criminal case lodged on 20.9.2019 namely Case Crime No. 12 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272 I.P.C. and 60/63 Excise Act in the same police station concerned. In the said criminal case, the applicant has been enlarged on bail noticing that there was no recovery from the possession of the applicant.

¶8

The contention is that even otherwise, the allegations that the applicant is a member of a gang which had indulged in any organised crime within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act' 1986 with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.7.2020.

¶9

Learned A.G.A., however, opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made above, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let applicant- Anjan Kumar Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond

¶12

and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶14

(ii) 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;

¶15

(iii) 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;

¶16

(iv) 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; and

¶17

(v) 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.9.2020 Brijesh

Anjan Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjan Kumar Singh 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

Navijan @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt.Nasreen Jahan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Taliwal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Das and Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Faizan Ali Vs State of U.P.

Zeeshan Vs State of U.P.