Allowed

Rashid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2020BAIL/30869/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge court granted amended bail to Rashid under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Societies Act. Conditions were imposed, including prohibitions on contacting witnesses and attending victim rallies, referencing Dataram Singh.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail subject to conditions: no contact with witnesses, no attendance at victim rallies, and no transfer without specific court approval.

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

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30869 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rashid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

orZeku nkf.Md izdh.kZ tekur izkFkZuk i=] vkosnd jkf’kn dh vksj ls eq0v0la0 296 lu 2020] vUrxZr /kkjk 3(1) U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986, Fkkuk /ku?kVk] ftyk lar dchj uxj esa tekur ij eqDr djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA

¶6

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk ifj’khyu fd;kA

¶7

vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd vkosnd dks bl izdj.k esa jaft’ku >wBk QWlk;k x;k gS] mlus dfFkr vijk/k dkfjr ugha fd;k gS] vkosnd ds fo:) xSax pkVZ esa nf’kZr oknksa esa mldh tekur Lohd`r gks pqdh gS bldk Li"Vhdj.k 'kiFki= esa fn;k x;k gS] vkosnd fdlh xSax dk yhMj ;k lnL; ugha gS] vkosnd funksZ"k gS rFkk og bl izdj.k esa fn0 16@17&03&2020 ls dkjkxkj es a fu:) gS] blfy, vkosnd dks tekur ij NksM+ fn;k tk;] tekur ij eqDr gksus ds i’pkr~ vkosnd Qjkj ugha gksxk vkSj u gh vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa dks izHkkfor djsxkA

¶8

fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk us vkosnd ds tekur dk fojks/k fd;kA

¶9

i=koyh ij miyC/k lkjoku rF;ksa] Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 21 ,oa Dataram Singh

¶10

Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr vH;qfDr ds n`f"Vxr] okn ds xq.k nks"k ij fcuk dksbZ fVIi.kh fd, gq, vkosnd dks mijksDr of.kZr vijk/k esa lacaf/kr U;k;ky; dh lUrqf"V ij O;fDrxr ca/k&i= ,oa mlh /kujkf’k ds nks izfrHkw izLrqr djus ij fuEufyf[kr 'krksZ ds lkFk tekur ij NksM+ fn;k tk;A

¶11

1& vkosnd foospuk ;k ijh{k.k ds nkSjku lkf{k;ksa dks Mjk;sxk@/kedk;sxk ugha ,oa vfHk;kstu lk{; ds lkFk NsM+NkM+ ugha djsxkA

¶12

2& vkosnd ijh{k.k ds nkSjku fcuk dksbZ LFkxu fy, ijh{k.k esa bZekunkjh ls lg;ksx djsxkA

¶13

3& vkosnd tekur ij fjgk gksus ds ckn fdlh Hkh vijkf/kd xfrfof/k esa fyIr ugha gksxk u dksbZ vijkf/kd d`R; djsxkA

¶14

4& vkosnd dks ;fn ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds vkns’kksa ds rgr xfBr lfefr ds vkns’k ds vuqlkj vYidkfyd tekur ij c<+k;k x;k gS rks vYidkfyd tekur dh vof/k lekIr gksus ds ckn mldh tekur izHkkoh gksxhA

¶15

5& vnkyrksa ds lkekU; dkedkt ds cgky gksus rd vkosnd dks fcuk fdlh tekur ds futh eqpyds ij tekur ij c<+k;k tk,xkA vnkyr ds lkekU; dkedkt cgky gksus ds ckn vkjksih ,d eghus ds Hkhrj vnkyr dh larqf"V ds izfrHkqvksa dks izLrqr djsxkA

¶16

6& ikVhZ mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn dh vkf/kdkfjd osclkbV ls MkmuyksM fd, x, bl rjg ds vkns’k dh daI;wVj tfur izfrfyfi nk;j djsxhA

¶17

7& lacaf/kr U;k;ky;@izkf/kdj.k@vf/kdkjh] mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn dh vkf/kdkfjd osclkbV ls vkns’k dh ,slh dEI;wVjhd`r izfr dh lR;rk dh iqf"V djsxk vkSj fyf[kr :i ls bl rjg ds lR;kiu dh ?kks"k.k djsxkA

¶18

mijksDr 'krksZ esa ls fdlh ds mYya?ku ds ekeys esa] ;g tekur jn~n djus dk vk/kkj

¶19

gksxkA

¶20

fn0 % 07&10&2020 ds0lh0flag

¶21

2 of 2

Rashid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid 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

Sunder Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Farukh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Kaseem Vs State of U.P.

Kaseem Vs State of U.P.