In Criminal Appeal No. 2681 of 2019, the Single Judge found it a fit case to grant bail to the appellant, who was convicted under the U.P. Gangster Act. Bail was allowed subject to conditions of avoiding adjournments and depositing the trial court fine.
Bail allowed subject to furnishing personal bond with two sureties and deposit of trial court fine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2681 of 2019 Appellant :- Sanjay Srivastava Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhir Kumar Srivastava,Ashish Kumar Pandey,Digvijay Singh,Nandini Mishra,Pradeep Kumar Rai,Sheo Shankar Tripathi,Shivajee Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Adya Prasad Tewari
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar learned counsels for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Pressing the second bail application of the appellant namely Sri Sanjay Srivastava, it is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the criminal cases, which had been indicated in the Gang Chart for booking the applicant under the Gangster Act, had been lodged between the year 1990-1996. In none of the criminal case, the prosecution had been able to establish the involvement of the applicant. The copies of the judgements passed in the criminal cases lodged against the applicant have been appended with the second bail application.
It is then contended that the applicant remained in jail for a period of approximately three and a half years for implication in case crime No.492 of 1991 out of which one year period of incarnation was during the course of trial.
It is contended that while the applicant was enlarged on bail by the trial court, no criminal case had been lodged against him nor there are any allegations of violation of the conditions of bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, having perused the material on record, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant. The appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The appellant is in jail since 22.02.2019.
Let the appellant- Sanjay Srivastava convicted and sentenced in Session Trial No. 14 of 1992 (State vs. Sanjay Srivastava) arising out of Case Crime No. 492 of 1991, under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act' 1986, Police Station Keedganj, District Allahabad, be released on bail, on furnishing a personal bond along with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the condition that
he shall cooperate in early disposal of the present appeal and shall not take any unnecessary adjournment to delay the disposal of the appeal.
The fine of Rs. 20,000/- imposed by the trial court shall also be deposited by the appellant.
The deposit of fine shall be subject to the final disposal of the present appeal.
The bail application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Himanshu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail in the criminal appeal proceeding.
Whether fine deposited now shall be subject to final disposal of the appeal.
Sanjay Srivastava
State of U.P.
Sunita Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
