Allowed

Jaffar @ Chanda v. State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2022/4996/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court granted bail to the applicant charged under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, noting his long incarceration and lack of new criminal history despite past bail, imposing standard conditions. The order explicitly avoids prejudging the merits of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding evidence tampering, court attendance, and proceedings under IPC 174-A and Cr.P.C. 229-A for absconding.

Jaffar @ Chanda Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4996 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jaffar @ Chanda Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K. Sahi, learned AAG assisted by Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0287 of 2022, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that only one case has been shown in the gang chart against the applicant in which he has been enlarged on bail. Copy of the bail order has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He further submits that except the cases mentioned in the gang chart, there are eleven cases criminal history of the applicant which has been explained in para 17 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It has also been submitted that the applicant is not involved in any anti-social activities and he is not a member of any gang. The applicant is in jail since 7.4.2022. In case the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail but he

¶9

could not dispute the fact that the applicant has been enlarged on bail and there is no any other criminal history of the applicant except explained aforesaid.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, I find that applicant has been enlarged on bail in the cases mentioned in the gang chart and there is no other criminal antecedents except explained aforesaid, coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 7.4.2022, thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Jaffar @ Chanda involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient

¶15

cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3) 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.; and

¶17

(4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

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.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations 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 merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.9.2022 Ram Murti

¶21

Digitally signed by RAM MURTI YADAV Date: 2022.09.28 20:12:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jaffar @ Chanda v. State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaffar @ Chanda v. State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Home Lko.

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

Saleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Qadeer Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Home Lko.

Altaf Hanif Qureshi @ Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Izahan Hasan Khan S/O Sri Hasan Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Amit Rao Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.