Allowed

Rakesh Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2022BAIL/3910/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a bail application filed by Rakesh Singh under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Act, 1986. The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail, citing principles from Supreme Court precedents regarding bail as the rule. Bail was granted subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, with conditions to ensure trial cooperation and non-interferen

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties in the amount of cash to the satisfaction of the court, subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3910 of 2022 Applicant :- Rakesh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶5

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Rakesh Singh with a prayer to release him in Case Crime No.1148 of 2016, under section 3(1) of U.P.Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur, during pendency of the trial.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Single case is shown in the gang-chart against the applicant. On account of single case provision of Gangster Act has been imposed. The applicant is on bail in the case shown in the gang chart. Bail order is annexed with bail application. Apart from cases shown in the gang chart, eight other cases are pending against the applicant. Applicant has been released on bail in all pending cases. Bail orders are annexed as Annexure Nos.SA-1 to SA-5 to the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant next argued that co-accused Abhay Singh @ Golu Singh & Guddu Singh alias Katai alias Amit alias Surendra Singh have been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 25.08.2020 & 28.08.2018. He next contended that the applicant is neither involved in any anti-social activities nor a leader of any gang. The applicant is in jail since 29.12.2016. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and co-operate in trial.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.

¶8

The Hon. Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I. (2012) 1 SCC 40, has observed that:

¶9

"21 In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a

¶10

punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

¶11

Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.

¶12

This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶13

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

¶14

Let the applicant, Rakesh Singh , who is involved in aforesaid case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 19.12.2022/SKD

¶20

Digitally signed by SURJIT KUMAR DEY Date: 2022.12.21 11:54:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Singh 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

Robin Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Rashmikant. Gabhawala Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mangal Singh @ Kanchole Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Vs State of U.P.

Afzal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Mithlesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others