Allowed

Virendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2022BAIL/32777/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of the applicant in a criminal case under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act. The applicant was granted bail with a personal bond and two local sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32777 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Virendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 121 of 2022, under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Bargaon, District Saharanpur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there is no material against the applicant to invoke the provisions of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. It is further submitted that in gang chart, four cases have been shown against applicant, in which, he is already on bail, copies of which has been annexed as annexure-3 to 8 to the bail application. It is submitted that applicant has criminal history of three more cases other than the case shown in gang chart, in which cases also, he has been enlarged on bail, copies of which are also annexed to this bail application. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 31.03.2022 and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Virendra in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶11

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

¶12

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶13

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

¶14

(4). 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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 22.8.2022 Mohit

¶17

Digitally signed by MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.08.22 17:42:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Virendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra 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

Aameen Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Gulzar @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Shakir @ Sakib @ Teepu Vs State of U.P.

Lalbahadur Vs State of U.P.

Shahjad Vs State of U.P.