Allowed

Zeeshan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2021BAIL/9552/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the court granted bail to the applicant, Zeeshan, who argued false implication and lack of gang membership. References were made to Article 21 and a Supreme Court bench decision.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to verification and specific conditions.

Zeeshan Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9552 of 2021 Applicant :- Zeeshan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Belal,Mohd Imdad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶3

Heard Mohd. Imdad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶4

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 704 of 2020, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Kotwali, District Ghaziabad, is seeking enlargement on bail during pendency of trial.

¶5

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to the gang chart the applicant is said to have been involved in five criminal cases, in which he has already been enlarged on bail and the copies of the same have been annexed as Annexure No.03 collectively to the application. Apart from the above mentioned cases, the applicant has also been implicated in five other cases in which also he is on bail, copies of the bail order have been annexed as S.A.-01 to S.A-05 to the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. He is not a member of any gang. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.10.2020 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

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.

¶8

Let the applicant, Zeeshan involved in aforesaid 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.

¶9

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

¶10

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.9.2021

¶19

S.P.

Zeeshan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zeeshan 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

Gulzar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Verma Vs State of U.P.

Tofeeq Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Kumar Seth Vs Union of India through Senior Intelligence Officer, D.R.I. Varanasi

Udit Narain Patel Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Singh Parmar Vs State of U.P.