Allowed

Sunil Kumar Jaiswal @ Shaktiman v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2021BAIL/16170/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge in Allahabad High Court allowed bail to an applicant charged under the U.P. Gangster Act who was in jail since January 2021, directing release on personal bond with sureties and imposing strict conditions to ensure appearance at trial.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to strict conditions.

Sunil Kumar Jaiswal @ Shaktiman Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16170 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Jaiswal @ Shaktiman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

The Court convened through video conferencing.

¶6

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

¶7

According to the gang chart, the applicant is said to have been involved in six criminal cases in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. It is urged that all the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned; the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; the applicant is not a member of any gang; the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.01.2021 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Let the applicant, Sunil Kumar Jaiswal @ Shaktiman, involved in Case Crime No. 28 of 2021, under section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Karanda, District Ghazipur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the 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, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

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.

¶18

The order reads thus:

¶19

"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 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 accusedapplicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."

¶20

Order Date :- 24.6.2021 Atul

Sunil Kumar Jaiswal @ Shaktiman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Jaiswal @ Shaktiman 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

Sharukh Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Kumar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Smt. Archana Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akram Vs State of U.P.

Sonu @ Parvej Alam Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P.