Allowed

Ram Nagina v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2020BAIL/3016/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed objections regarding the number of cases against the applicant and, relying on constitutional mandates, granted bail in a criminal matter under the U.P. Gangsters Act subject to sureties and specific conditions regarding court functioning and verification of orders.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3016 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Nagina Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar 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, Ram Nagina, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 231 of 2019 under Sections 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Shyamdeurawa, District- Maharajganj, during pendency of trial.

¶7

According to the gang chart, the applicant is said to have been involved in three criminal cases in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, 19 cases have been shown against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit stating that there are only 12 cases against the applicant and the remaining 7 cases shown in the counter affidavit belong to different persons since the parentage of accuseds in these cases is different from that of applicant. He is languishing in jail since 26.10.2019.

¶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 released on bail.

¶12

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.

¶13

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. In case the court below is functioning normally, this condition will not apply and the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court below.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 22.9.2020 KS

Ram Nagina v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Nagina 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

Vikki Singh @ Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Dayal Vs State of Up

Sonu Jatav Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Arif Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Varshney @ Bittu Vs State of U.P.