Allowed

Bhoora @ Shavej v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2022BAIL/17578/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to applicant Bhoora @ Shavej in a case under the UP Gangsters Act. Court noted co-accused were already released on bail and found it a fit case for release with conditions preventing tampering and witness influence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Bhoora @ Shavej Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17578 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bhoora @ Shavej Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Madhava Nand Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Madhava Nand Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Nishad, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 1 of 2022, under Section 2/3 of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶7

The aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged against 6 named persons including the applicant. The gang chart mentions two cases against the applicant, namely, (1) Case Crime No. 133 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar and (2) Case Crime No. 134 of 2021 under Sections 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar, in both of which, the applicant has been granted bail on 21.06.2021 and copies of the bail order have been annexed as annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

¶8

It has also been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that apart from the two cases shown in the gang chart, the applicant has criminal history of three cases, namely, (1) Case Crime No. 351 of 2016, under Sections 3/11 The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar, (2) Case Crime No. 712 of 2017 under Section 380 IPC, Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar and (3) Case Crime No. 452 of 2017, under Sections 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar, in all of which, the applicant has been granted bail.

¶9

It has been stated in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the bail application that one of the named co-accused person, namely, Rifakat has been granted bail by means of an order dated 25.02.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail

¶10

Application No. 6658 of 2022 and another co-accused Farakat has been granted bail by means of an order dated 05.03.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7303 of 2022. Yet another co-accused Naseem who is alleged to be the gang leader has been granted bail by means of an order dated 31.03.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9017 of 2022.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it is stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated; that he is neither member of a gang nor he has committed any offence. The affidavit contains an undertaking that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this Court and, that he will not tamper with the evidence or influence the trial in any manner. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.01.2022.

¶12

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the fact that the case set up against the applicant is similar to that set up against the other co-accused persons, who have already been released on bail.

¶13

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶14

In the light of preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant Bhoora @ Shavej be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1 of 2022, under Section 2/3 of The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such

¶20

facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.7.2022 Jaswant

¶23

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.07.16 17:13:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhoora @ Shavej v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhoora @ Shavej 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

Kaushal Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Rajan @ Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ganga Singh @ Gango Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Prasad (in Wria 3799 of 2022) Vs U.O.I. Thru.Secy. Information and Technology and Deptt. of Broadcasting and I.T.,New Delhi and Ors.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Shakti Singh Vs State of U.P.