Allowed

Imran v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2021BAIL/31359/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed. The court granted bail under the U.P. Gangsters Act based on pandemic overcrowding concerns and the precedent of Dataram Singh. Bail was released with a personal bond, two sureties, and strict conditions including attendance at trial and no tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters Act with a personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31359 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Imran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Om Narayan Dwivedi,Ratnesh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA, appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that two cases have been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart which has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and in the said case, the applicant has been granted bail by the competent Court, the said fact has been mentioned in para 7 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. The applicant is in jail since 12.07.2021. It is further contended that except the gang chart one criminal case is also pending against the applicant in which the applicant has been released on bail, the said fact has been mentioned in para 8 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶9

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (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.

¶10

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶11

Let applicant- Imran , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 97 of 2021, under Sections- 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Saidnagli, District- Amroha, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶12

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶13

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶14

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶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 :- 28.9.2021 Arti

Imran v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran 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

Kamaal Vs State of U.P.

Govind Verma Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Farman Ali Vs State of U.P.

Heera Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Vs State of U.P.