Allowed

Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2020BAIL/26127/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, relying on Article 21 and precedent. The applicant was ordered to furnish a personal bond with two sureties, though none were required due to the court's pendency issues. Specific conditions regarding witness intimidation, trial cooperation, and criminal activity were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond (no sureties initially) and strict conditions including no tampering of evidence, no future crimes, and cooperation with the trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26127 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Vivek Kumar, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 134 of 2019 under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Bewar, District- Mainpuri 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. Apart from the cases shown in the gang chart, the applicant has criminal history of 5 more cases explained in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant alleges false implication in the present case due to police rivalry. He is languishing in jail since 28.01.2020.

¶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

¶12

commission of any crime after being 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 official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 17.9.2020 KS

Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar 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

Jasveer Maan Vs State of U.P.

Asharaf Ali @ Chhote Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Farhan Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Raju @ Rajesh Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Vs State of U.P.