Allowed

Neeraj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2022BAIL/46708/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to the applicant, Neeraj, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case punishable under the U.P. Gangsters Act. The Court, noting the applicant is languishing in jail and considering pandemic-related overcrowding, allowed the application without assessing merits of the charges. Conditions include cooperation with trial and no tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties; verified identity, residence, status shall cooperate in trial and not tamper with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46708 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Neeraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Avanish Kumar Shukla, 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- Neeraj for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.0057 of 2021, under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station- Hathras Junction, District- Hathras.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 5.10.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by on Rajeev Yadav before the P.S. Hathras Junction, District Hathras, being FIR No. 0057 on 7.3.2021 at 17:30 hours under Section 2/3 of Gangsters Act against the applicant and five others.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards page-31 of the bail application being gang chart arguing that there is a solitary case shown to be pending against the applicant being Case Crime no. 294 of 2020, in which he has been bailed out by the court below on 23.12.2020, order whereof is in the supplementary affidavit at page-43. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of this Court towards supplementary affidavit dated 25.11.2021, being paragraph no.4, wherein as many as 27 cases shown to be pending against the applicant including the present case as well as Case Crime no.257 of 2021, which are post lodging of the FIR and in which cases applicant has been enlarged on bail, orders whereof have been annexed with the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that once the applicant has been enlarged on bail in all the cases mentioned above, there is no occasion to invoke the said provisions while the applicant is languishing in jail since 5.9.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he will not

¶10

misuse the liberty of bail, he be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Countering the said submission, the learned AGA has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant has committed the offence, but he could not dispute the fact that the criminal history of the applicant has been properly explained. Learned A.G.A, has produced before the Court the instructions having the DCRB chart showing 22 cases inclusive of the 27 cases, so disclosed by the applicant, which is taken on record.

¶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, that the applicant has properly explained the criminal history and is languishing in jail since 5.9.2021, as also 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- Neeraj 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

¶20

facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 4.3.2022 N.S.Rathour

¶26

Digitally signed by NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2022.03.05 09:56:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neeraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj 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

Kaptan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rohtash Vs State of U.P.

Avinash Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sharad Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Gautam Vs State of U.P.