Allowed

Raju @ Akil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2021BAIL/28500/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Act, the High Court granted bail to the applicant. The court cited the principle that bail is the rule and committal is the exception, noting the applicant's prior bail grants and lack of gang membership evidence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28500 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Raju @ Akil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sabhajeet Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Sabhajeet Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, Raju @ Akil with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 158 of 2021, under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Police Station- Sahibabad District- Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. In gang-chart annexed as Annexure No. 2, two criminal cases being Case Crime No. 1452 of 2020, under Sections 380, 411 I.P.C. & Case Crime No. 1547 of 2020, under Sections 380, 411, 457 I.P.C., both the cases are registered at P.S. Sahibabad District Ghaziabad, in the said cases, applicant has been released on bail by this Court as well as by the court below, copies of the said bail orders have been annexed in Annexure No. 3 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. Apart from this above criminal cases, there are two other criminal cases against the applicant being Case Crime No. 07 of 2021, under Section 8/21 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, P.S. Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad and Case Crime No. 08 of 2016, under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, P.S. R.P.F./Post Sahibabad District Ghaziabad, in the said cases, applicant has also been released on bail by the court below, copies of bail order has annexed in Annexure No. SA-1 of the supplementary affidavit. It is next contended that applicant is neither a member of any gang nor a gang leader and he is not involved in any anti-social activities as alleged by the prosecution in the first information report. It is next contended that there is no other criminal antecedent to his credit. It is next

¶9

submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 19.02.2021, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has not pointed out any other criminal case except the aforesaid criminal case.

¶11

It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 , the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative." and considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 , larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

¶12

Let applicant, Raju @ Akil be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶13

(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.

¶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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶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. 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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶18

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

¶19

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶20

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 :- 2.9.2021 Ishan

Raju @ Akil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Akil 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

Shantosh Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Damppy Yadav @ Manish Vs State of U.P.

Farman Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.

Tetari Devi Vs State of U.P.