Allowed

Mohd. Mateen and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2021BAIL/86/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court granted bail to three applicants accused under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, contingent upon execution of a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions preventing tampering with witnesses and ensuring court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicants allowed bail on executing personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specific conditions of appearance and non-tampering.

Mohd. Mateen and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 86 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Mateen And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Manoj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have not committed the alleged offence. It is further submitted that one case has been shown against the applicant nos. 1 and 2 and two cases have been shown against the applicant no. 3 in the Gang Chart and in the said cases, the applicants have been granted bail, copies of the bail orders have been annexed in the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of applicants either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicants who are in jail since 25.11.2020, undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicants- Mohd Mateen, Taslim @ Kallu and Danish , involved in Case Crime No. 313 of 2020, under Section- 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Nagina Dehat, District Bijnor, be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. It is further provided that this bail order available on the official website of the High Court will be taken to be the authentic one and certified copy shall be submitted before that court concerned as soon as it is issued.

¶9

This bail order would be subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:-

¶10

The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶11

The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶12

The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶13

The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶14

In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

The applicants 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶16

In case the applicants have been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court their bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Rmk.

¶19

Digitally signed by Justice Neeraj Tiwari Date: 2021.01.06 17:02:00 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Mateen and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Mateen and 2 Others 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

Aru @ Abhishek Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Navnath Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Vs State of U.P.

Firoz Alam Vs State of U.P.

Makalu @ Hashim Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.