Allowed

Sunil @ Ghansu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jun 2021BAIL/41063/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Sunil @ Ghansu in a case under the U.P. Gangsters Act. The court considered jail overcrowding due to the pandemic and the applicant's criminal history, holding him entitled to bail subject to specific conditions. The application was disposed of on merits without detailed observations on the facts of the instant offence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions including presence at trial stages and consequences for absconding.

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

¶1

Court No. - 6 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41063 of 2020 Applicant :- Sunil @ Ghansu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Kapil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State through video conferencing mode.

¶4

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No 59 of 2019 at Police Station-Naraini, District-Banda on 20.03.2019 under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act.

¶5

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (Gangsters Act)/5th Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, on 27.07.2019.

¶6

The applicant is in jail since 26.06.2019 pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶7

Sri Kapil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in eight criminal cases out of ten cases, depicted in the gang chart. He has satisfactorily explained the other two cases under Section 3 of Goondas Act and Section 110 Cr.P.C. The period of externment under the Goondas Act has expired. The period of six months has elapsed since initiation of proceedings under Section 110. As such the said proceedings have also come to an end and are no longer pending. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He is not a member of any criminal

¶8

gang. The applicant has satisfactorily explained his criminal history. The applicant claims parity with the case of other co-accused person, namely, Rinku Pandey @ Anil, who has been granted bail by this Court on 25.09.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38721 of 2019, (Rinku Pandey @ Anil Vs. State of U.P.). Lastly it is submitted by Sri Kapil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for 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.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Let the applicant- Sunil @ Ghansu be released on bail in Case Crime No 59 of 2019 at Police Station-Naraini, District-Banda registered on 20.03.2019 under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention)

¶13

Act, 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:-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 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.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, the trial 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

Order Date :- 8.6.2021 Dhananjai

Sunil @ Ghansu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil @ Ghansu 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

Harish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anil Devid Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Suhail Vs State of U.P.

Yaseen Vs State of U.P.

Mintu Vs State of U.P.