Allowed

Shahrukh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Jun 2022BAIL/23407/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. The applicant argued he was falsely implicated and lacked criminal history other than a solitary case. The state did not satisfactorily dispute these submissions, leading the court to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail after furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23407 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shahrukh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.943 of 2021 at Police Station Auraiya District Auraiya under Sections 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. The applicant is in jail since 14.03.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Gangster Act), Auraiya on 28.03.2022.

¶7

Shri Birendra Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Rajeev Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant has been enlarged on bail in the solitary criminal case depicted in the gang chart. He is not member of any criminal gang. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that apart from the above said case, the applicant does not have any criminal history.

¶8

Shri I.P. Srivastava, learned A.G.A for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact

¶9

that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the above said cases.

¶10

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant-Shahrukh 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 9.6.2022 Nadeem

¶19

Digitally signed by NADEEM AHMAD Date: 2022.06.10 11:00:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shahrukh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahrukh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshay Vs State of U.P.

Sabir Ali Vs State of U.P.

Ramjani Vs State of U.P.

Meenu Sain Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.