Allowed

Mugeesudeen @ Guddu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2022BAIL/25113/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a charge under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. The court relied on the applicant's prior acquittal in an NDPS case and bail in other arms act cases, finding him entitled to release on furnishing sureties and personal bond with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

Mugeesudeen @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25113 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mugeesudeen @ Guddu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad,Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Mohd. Faisal Khan, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ansar Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vinod Kumar Rai, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

By way of present application, applicant made a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 211 of 2022, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Ramgarh, District Firozabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been made accused in the present case on the basis of solitary case of Arms Act which relates Section 5/25A Arms Act and in that case applicant has been released on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court on 5.5.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14700 of 2022. Copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure- 2 to the bail application. He further submitted that apart from this case shown in the gang-chart he was also made accused in another case of Arms Act and NDPS Act and in the case of NDPS Act he has already been acquitted by the trial Court and in the Arms Act case he has already been released on bail and apart from these cases there is no other criminal history of the applicant. He further submitted that applicant never indulged in any anti-social activity and he is having no concern with any gang. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

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

¶10

Perusal of the gang chart shows that applicant made accused on the basis of single case of section 5/25A Arms Act in which

¶11

applicant has already been released on bail and apart from the case shown in the gang-chart applicant was made accused in another case of Arms Act in which he is on bail and in case of NDPS Act, in which, he has already been acquitted by the trial Court, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Hence, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant- Mugeesudeen @ Guddu, 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 he 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

¶20

try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 24.6.2022 Shiv

¶24

Digitally signed by SHIV KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2022.06.25 14:02:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mugeesudeen @ Guddu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mugeesudeen @ Guddu 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

Smt. Meena @ Savita and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shane Alam and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Chintaharan Tiwari @ Cheeru Cheeru Maharaj and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rohit Gupta @ Golu Vs State of U.P.

Ankur Kumar Vs State of U.P.