Allowed

Satvir and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2020BAIL/3428/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed a bail application filed by Satvir and three others accused under the U.P. Gangsters Act and Arms Act. The Court ordered their release on personal bond with stringent conditions regarding trial attendance and verified copy of the order.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on personal bond and two sureties to be furnished within one month, subject to strict conditions of trial attendance and conduct.

Satvir and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3428 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Satvir And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

This bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 1095 of 2015, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station - Baghpat, District - Baghpat, during pendency of the trial.

¶6

As per the averments made in the First Information Report applicants are members of an organized gang and conduct various criminal activities in the area concerned. A gang chart is annexed in which the applicant no. 1 Satvir is shown to be accused in Case Crime No. 578/15 as also in Case Crime No. 583/15, under Section 25 Arms Act. So far as applicant no. 2 is concerned, he is shown to be involved in Case Crime No. 578/15 and 597/15, under Section 25 Arms Act. Applicant No. 3 is shown to be accused in Case Crime No. 578/15 and 584/15. Applicant No. 4 is shown to be an accused in Case Crime No. 578/15 and Case Crime No. 596/15, under Section 25 Arms Act. So far as Case Crime No. 578/15 is concerned, all the applicants have already been acquitted by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Baghpat, dated 20.12.2019 in Session Trial Nos. 538/15 to 542/15. The averment with regard to acquittal of applicants in the aforesaid case is mentioned in paragraph 9, which is not denied in the counter affidavit filed by learned AGA. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit reference is made to Case Crime No. 774 of 2017, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by counsel for the applicant annexing the order of acquittal passed by Sessions Judge, Baghpat, dated 31.1.2020 in Session Trial

¶7

No. 427 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 774 of 2017, under Sections 307/34, 504, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat.

¶8

It is urged on behalf of the applicants that apart from the aforesaid cases wherein the applicants have already been acquitted, there is no other material brought on record by the respondents which may substantiate the allegation that applicants are member of an organized gang. It is stated that none of the applicants have formed any gang nor have indulged in any anti-social activity and the proceedings initiated against them have already concluded with orders of acquittal passed against them. The applicants are otherwise languishing in Jail since 24.11.2015.

¶9

Perused the record and rejection order passed by the court below.

¶10

Let the applicants -Satvir, Devpriya, Mintu @ Pintu and Ajad involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their 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:-

¶11

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶12

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.

¶19

The order reads thus:

¶20

"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

¶21

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."

¶22

Order Date :- 17.4.2020 Ranjeet Sahu

Satvir and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satvir and 3 Others 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

Mohammad Usman Vs State of U.P.

Shyamveer Vs State of U.P.

Sajid Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Bilal Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Shankar Verma Vs State of U.P.