Allowed

Amit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2021BAIL/18940/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to three applicants implicated under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Act. The court observed they made out a case despite the nature of the offence and imposed strict conditions regarding trial attendance and evidence filing.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants Amit Kumar, Deshraj and Ramjeevan on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each.

Amit Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18940 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raja Ram Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

This matter is listed for hearing through video conferencing. Link has been sent to the respective learned counsels. Learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State are connected through the link.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicants who are involved in Case Crime No.263 of 2020, under Sections 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicants are not the active member of any gang and the applicants are nothing to do with the aforesaid offence. He further submits that only one case has been shown to be registered against the applicants in which two applicants (Amit Kumar and Deshraj) have already been released on bail vide order dated 07.07.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18498 of 2020 and the third application has also been released on bail vide order dated 27.08.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.20078 of 2020. He further submits that the applicants are innocent and they are languishing in jail since 01.03.2021. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that if applicants are released on bail the applicants undertake that they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

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

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity

¶11

of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicants Amit Kumar, Deshraj and Ramjeevan, who are involved in Case Crime No.263 of 2020, under Sections 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Sajeti, District Kanpur 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. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE 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 LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶14

(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 IPC.

¶15

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANT 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 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.

¶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 APPLICANT.

¶18

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

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.6.2021 pks

Amit Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar and 2 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saleem Vs State of U.P.

Akhtar Raza Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P.

Rajeev Vs State of U.P.

Sagar @ Jaiveer Vs State of U.P. and another