Allowed

Anoop @ Veer and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2022BAIL/30892/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicants in a case under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Act. The court allowed bail subject to personal bonds, sureties, and strict conditions prohibiting tampering with witnesses and ensuring attendance for evidence and specific court dates.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the amount satisfactory to the court, subject to specified conditions regarding witness tampering and court attendanc

Anoop @ Veer and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30892 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anoop @ Veer And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Imran Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Anoop @ Veer and Naresh @ Jaan , with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 223 of 2022, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act , Police Station Kotwali, District- Mathura, during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that according to the gang chart the applicants are said to have been involved in two criminal cases in which they have already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. The applicants have falsely been implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. The applicants are not a member of any gang. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicants are not a previous convict. The applicants are languishing in jail since 02.03.2022 and in case they are enlarged on bail they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants by contending that the applicants are a member of gang and habitual of committing crime. In case the applicants are released on bail they will again indulge in similar anti-social activities and will misuse the bail by extending threat and intimidation to the prosecution witnesses.

¶9

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶10

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶11

(ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they will not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶12

(iii) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iv) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against them in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(v) The applicants shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicants are 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 them in accordance with law.

¶15

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

¶16

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.7.2022 Ruchi Agrahari

¶18

Digitally signed by RUCHI AGRAHARI Date: 2022.07.21 17:32:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anoop @ Veer and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop @ Veer and Another 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

Manish Goenka and Another Vs State of Up.

Manvendra Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Alias Ramgopal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Vs State of U.P.