Allowed

Vipin Verma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2020BAIL/39841/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under the U.P. Gangsters Act, the Court considered the applicant's custody duration and pending cases. Relying on the Dataram Singh precedent, the High Court held that a fit case for bail was made out. The applicant was granted bail on a personal bond and two sureties subject to several strict conditions regarding court attendance.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Vipin Verma is released on bail in Case Crime No. 566 of 2020 by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount with prescribed conditions.

Vipin Verma Vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39841 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vipin Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant- Vipin Verma, who is involved in Case Crime No. 566 of 2020 under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Sikandra, District Agra, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

It is contended by counsel for the applicant that gang chart reveals only one case registered against the applicant but on the pointing out by learned A.G.A. that five more cases were pending against the applicant, a supplementary affidavit was filed on 21.11.2020 wherein in paragraph no.2, details of the cases pending against the applicant has been disclosed and copy of the bail orders have been annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. Apart from these cases, there are no other case pending against the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.07.2020.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. apart from opposing the bail of the applicant could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, 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, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Vipin Verma be released on bail in Case Crime No. 566 of 2020 under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Sikandra, District Agra, on 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 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 abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶12

(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.

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of this computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶18

(viii) 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 10.12.2020 KA

¶21

Digitally signed by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal Date: 2020.12.10 15:50:20 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vipin Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Verma 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

Ram Bhool Yadav and 3 Others Vs Gyan Kunj Construction Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others

Aasif Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Romila Bhatnagar (Now Died) and 2 Others Vs Radha Soami Satsang Sabha and 3 Others

Nadeem Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Sharma Vs Sanjay Jain @ Sanjay Kumar Jain

Anand Vs State of U.P.