Allowed

Jairam Uraw v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2021BAIL/46385/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Act. The court imposed strict conditions regarding attendance at trial dates and filing undertakings, subjecting the order to termination if breached.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions ensuring presence for trial dates.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46385 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Jairam Uraw Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 202 of 2021, under Section 3(1) of UP Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Gagaha, District Gorakhpur.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that solitary case hsa been shown against the accused-applicant in the gang chart, in which the applicant is on bail. Copy of gang-chart and bail order have been annexed as Annexure Nos.2 and 3 respectively to the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 08.08.2021.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail. He submits that the investigation is now complete and the charge sheet has been filed.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Jairam Uraw , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of

¶12

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.

¶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 IPC.

¶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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶17

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

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.12.2021 Saif

Jairam Uraw v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jairam Uraw 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumit Narayan @ Tinku Vs State of U.P.

Nishant Vs State of U.P.

Jalil Khan @ Raja Vs State of U.P.

Sri Suyash Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Suneel Gupta Vs State of U.P.