Allowed

Gunga @ Mustkeem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 May 2021BAIL/20028/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant in a cruelty to animals case, citing jail overcrowding and lack of independent recovery witnesses as key factors. The application was allowed after the previous rejection by the Sessions Judge, with specific conditions imposed for the applicant's presence in court.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of presence in court and prohibiting tampering with evidence.

Gunga @ Mustkeem Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20028 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Gunga @ Mustkeem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State through video conferencing mode.

¶6

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No.32 of 2021 at Police Station- Bela, DistrictAuraiya on 09.02.2021 under Sections 11(1)(D) The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Auraiya on 20.04.2021.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 05.02.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant does not have any criminal history and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant was named by a co-accused in his statement before the police authorities. There is no independent witness of the recovery. Lastly, it is submitted by Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Peition (C) No.1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India) . These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶12

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Gunga @ Mustkeem be released on bail in Case Crime No.32 of 2021 at Police Station- Bela, DistrictAuraiya, under Sections 11(1)(D) The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either through his counsel or personally as and when directed by the learned trial court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶16

(ii) 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 C r.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

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, the trial court in order to secure his presence may issue a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In case 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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(vi) 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 :- 20.5.2021 AK Pandey

¶22

Digitally signed by Justice Ajay Bhanot Date: 2021.05.23 15:34:41 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gunga @ Mustkeem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunga @ Mustkeem 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

Sunil Parashar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P

Smt. Sharifa Khatoon Vs State of U.P.

Harshit Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Chauhan @ Vikku Vs State of U.P.

Kallu Vs State of U.P.