Allowed

Mohd. Naim v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2020BAIL/26914/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail to Mohd. Naim in a case under the U.P. Gangsters Act, imposed specific trial attendance conditions, and incorporated pandemic-era directions allowing release on personal bond when sureties are unavailable.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties in like amount on specified conditions regarding trial attendance and satisfying the court concerning sureties in later stages.

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

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26914 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Naim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ali Hasan,Istiyaq Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as also perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Mohd. Naim with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 145 of 2020, under Section - 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station - Mariyahun, District - Jaunpur , during pendency of trial.

¶7

According to the gang chart, the applicant is said to have been involved in a single criminal case under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. However, he has been enlarged on bail in that case. According to the applicant he has been falsely implicated in that case and that he has never offered any conduct as may warrant implication under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He is languishing in jail since 07.07.2020.

¶8

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Mohd. Naim involved in the 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:-

¶9

(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.

¶10

(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.

¶11

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial

¶12

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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶18

" 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 accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶19

Order Date :- 10.9.2020 Abhilash

Mohd. Naim v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Naim 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

Ramjan Vs State of U.P.

Malkhan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ayyub Vs State of U.P.

Hameed Alias Gurjar Vs State of U.P.

Waseem @ Naseem @ Kallo Vs State of U.P.

Nitin Singh Vs State of U.P.