Allowed

Ankit @ Chikna v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 May 2020BAIL/50208/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chamber bail application allowed for applicant in Gangster Act case. Bail granted subject to personal bond, sureties later, and strict conditions including undertaking against adjournments and presence in court. Quackery of trial to be concluded within one year imposed.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties later; strict conditions imposed against adjournments and absence from court.

Ankit @ Chikna Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50208 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit @ Chikna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradip Narain Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

This bail application has been listed before me pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 04.04.2020 for consideration, therefore, same is being decided in Chamber under the extraordinary condition prevailing now a days.

¶6

Written objection dated 02.05.2020 filed by Sri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned AGA-1st, which is taken on record.

¶7

The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.08.2020 in connection with case crime no. 820 of 2016 under Sections 2/3 U.P.Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Noida, Sector-58, District Gautam Budha Nagar.

¶8

The bail application no. 5919 of 2019 was rejected by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Gautam Budh Nagar by order dated 25.10.2019. The gang chart shows that except the present one there are two other cases, namely case crime no. 441 of 2016 under Sections 396 and 412 IPC, P.S. Sector 58 District Gautam Budh Nagar, and case crime no. 484 of 2016 under Section 25 Arms Act of the same police station were registered. It is borne out from the record that in both the cases applicant was admitted on bail on different occasion. The applicant is in jail since 05.08.2016 and trial has not been concluded.

¶9

Learned AGA too in his written objection in paragraph 3 has accepted that there are two cases to the credit of the applicant.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, 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, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant-Ankit @ Chikna , who is involved in case crime no. 820 of 2016 under Sections 2/3 U.P.Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Noida, Sector-58, District Gautam Budha Nagar, 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 subject to following conditions.

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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

¶13

LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶14

(ii) THE APPLICANT/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 229A IPC.

¶15

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANTS ARE 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.

¶17

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANTS.

¶18

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

¶19

Since the bail application has been decided under extra ordinary circumstance, thus in the interest of justice, following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicants to be released on bail forthwith. Needles to mention, that these additional condition are imposed to cope up with the emergent condition:-

¶20

1. 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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity

¶24

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. Order Date :- 4.5.2020 Abhishek Sri.

Ankit @ Chikna v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit @ Chikna 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

Sawez @ Gattu Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Nida Parveen Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Banshi Alias Karan Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sharan Vs State of U.P.

Savej Vs State of U.P.