Allowed

Om Prakash Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Jun 2022BAIL/23151/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Act, an applicant already freed on bail in two foundational cases was granted release on personal bond and two sureties in the present matter, subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence and attending all court dates.

Om Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23151 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Om Prakash Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.N. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶7

By way of present application, applicant made a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 109 of 2022, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of two cases, applicant has been made accused in the present matter and in both cases, the applicant has already been released on bail. The order of the same has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application and Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that apart from the cases shown in the gang chart, applicant has also made accused in two other cases, in which also, the applicant is enlarged on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the fact that in two cases, on the basis of which, applicant made accused in the present case, has already been enlarged on bail.

¶10

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶11

Perusal of the gang chart shows that applicant made accused in the present case on the basis of two cases and perusal of the bail orders filed in support of bail application shows that in those two cases, applicant is already on bail, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the

¶12

view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant- Om Prakash Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶19

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶22

Order Date :- 20.6.2022 AK Pandey

¶23

Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.06.22 10:32:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Singh 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

Ajeem and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhupendra Narayan Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Sundr and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ritik Lakhera Vs State of U.P.

Narsingh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Solanki Vs State of U.P.