Allowed

Dushyant @ Kanha v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2022BAIL/2948/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant charged with offenses under the Prevention of U.P. Gangster and Anti-social Activities Act, considering pandemic-related jail overcrowding and lack of disputed criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Releasing the applicant on bail on a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions not to tamper with evidence or commit further crimes.

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

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2948 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dushyant @ Kanha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Chahar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Kuldeep Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant Dushyant @ Kanha for seeking bail in Case Crime No.159 of 2021 under Section 2/3 of the Prevention of U.P. Gangster and Anti-social Activities Act, registered at Police Station-Sureer, DistrictMathura.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 12.8.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the first information report has been lodged by one Sub-Inspector Ranjit Verma before Police Station-Sureer, District-Mathura being FIR No.0159 on 11.6.2021 at 22:12 hours, under Section 2/3 of the Prevention of U.P. Gangster and Anti-social Activities Act. He has drawn the attention of this court towards gang chart which has been annexed at page 14 of the bail application so as to contend that 14 cases shown to be pending against the applicants. He has further argued that so far as Case Crime No.117 of 2021, under Section 307 IPC is concerned the applicant has been enlarged on bail by virtue of order dated 10.12.2021 passed by coordinate bench of this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45858 of 2021 at page 16 of the bail application application so far as Case Crime No.0061 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC is concerned the applicant has been enlarged on bail by virtue of order dated 21.12.2021 passed by coordinate bench of this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.41403 of 2021 at page 19 of the bail application application so far as Case Crime No.37 of 2021, under Sections 392 & 411 IPC is concerned the applicant has been enlarged on bail by virtue of order dated 17.6.2021 passed by lower court in Bail Application No.1629 of 2021 at page 24 of the bail application application followed by Case Crime No.100 of 2021, under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC is concerned

¶9

the applicant has been enlarged on bail by virtue of order dated 17.6.2021 passed by lower court in Bail Application No.1664 of 2021 at page 26 of the bail application application. Lastly, Case Crime No.111 of 2021, under Sections 392 & 411 IPC is concerned the applicant has been enlarged on bail by virtue of order dated 17.6.2021 passed by lower court in Bail Application No.1664 of 2021 at page 28 of the bail application, Case Crime No.46 of 2021, under Sections 392/411 IPC by court below in Bail Application No.1630 of 2021 on 17.6.2021 & Case Crime No.169 of 2021, under Sections 394/411 IPC by court below on 27.7.2021 in bail application no.10231 of 2021.

¶10

In nutshell learned counsel for the applicant argument is to the extent that invocation of the provisions of the Gangsters Act is illegal and the applicant is unnecessary languishing in jail since 29.4.2021.

¶11

Countering the said submissions learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail, while arguing that the proceedings are perfectly valid and he could not dispute the fact baring the aforesaid cases, there are other cases pending against the applicant.

¶12

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, prima facie this Court finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the applicant explained the criminal history which has not been disputed, looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶13

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the applicant Dushyant @ Kanha involved in aforesaid 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 that :-

¶16

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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.

¶20

(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

Any observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶24

Order Date :- 8.2.2022 piyush

¶25

Digitally signed by PIYUSH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.09 18:05:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dushyant @ Kanha v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dushyant @ Kanha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Omkar Vs State of U.P.

Keshav Dev Lavaniya Bahadur Vs State of U.P.

Moolchandra Vs State of U.P.

Vijendra Kapoor Vs State of U.P.

Piyush Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Madan Vs State of U.P., through Its Principal Secretary Home