Allowed

Mithun Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2021BAIL/36025/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under the U.P. Gangsters Act, the High Court granted bail to the applicant. The court noted the lack of evidence regarding gang membership and considered jail overcrowding during the pandemic. Bail was conditioned on furnishing personal bond and sureties, along with strict undertakings to appear in court.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of applicant Mithun Kashyap on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rupees One Lakh each.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36025 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mithun Kashyap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive of the police concerned, the applicant is neither gang leader nor member of any Gang. It is next contended that two cases have been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart/ F.I.R., and other cases apart from the Gang Chart have been properly explained in paragraphs- 6 to 11, of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is next contended that without any consideration of evidence by the police about the evidence that may show that the applicant is a member of a criminal gang or its leader, he has been implicated in the present crime. There is no evidence on record to show that the applicant is a member of a criminal gang or its leader. It is further contended that there is no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant who is in jail since 03.02.2021, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer but has not disputed the aforesaid fact.

¶8

Courts have taken notice of overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref: Sue, 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.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the submissions advanced and the provisions for Section 19 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,1986, evidence, complicity of the accused, reformative theory of punishment , and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Mithun Kashyap, involved in Case Crime No. 66 of 2021, under Section- 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Aliganj, District- Etah, be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rupees One Lakh each (one should be of a family member) in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(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

¶12

the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the 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 :- 5.10.2021

¶22

ssm

Mithun Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithun Kashyap 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

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Firoz Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Rahish Vs State of U.P.

Saleem @ Billi Vs State of U.P.