Allowed

Aditya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2020BAIL/4546/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment is a bail order where the High Court, keeping in mind provisions of the U.P. Gangsters Act and the reformative theory of punishment, granted bail to the applicant subject to strict conditions regarding court appearances and undertaking not to seek adjournments, with liberty to cancel bail on breach.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4546 of 2020

¶3

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

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not committed the alleged offence. It is further submitted that only one case has been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart and in the said case, the applicant has been granted bail, copy of the bail order has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant who is in jail since 23.11.2019, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶8

Keeping in view the submissions advanced and the provisions for Section 19 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,1986, evidence, complicity of the accused, reformative theory of punishment, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶9

Let the applicant- Aditya , involved in Case Crime No.312 of 2019, under Section- 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Lalganj, District-Basti, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶10

(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.

¶11

(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,

¶12

the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 29.1.2020 Rmk.

Aditya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Salim Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nepal Singh Sagar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Veer Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shanu Vs State of U.P.

Farhan @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.