Anjesh Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 93

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52214 of 2022

Applicant :- Anjesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Surendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Anjesh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 460 of 2019, under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Jaithra, District- Etah, during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to the gang chart, the applicant is said to have been involved in two criminal cases, namely, (i) Case Crime No. 338 of 2019 u/s 302, 307, 323, 504, 34 I.P.C., P.S.Jaithra, District- Etah, in which he has already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44689 of 2022 and (ii) Case Crime No. 340 of 2019 u/s 3/25/27 of Arms Act, P.S.- Jaithra, District- Etah, in which he has been enlarged on bail by trial court concerned vide order dated 03.11.2022. Copy of the aforesaid orders have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 3 and 4 to the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application. Apart from two cases shown in the gang chart, the applicant has no other criminal history to his credit. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.11.2019. It is further submitted that identically circumstanced coaccused, Subhash @ Allu, has been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45201 of 2022. Copy of the aforesaid order has been annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application. The case of the applicant stands on identical footing and the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. However, he could not deny the submissions made on behalf of the applicant.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, the fact that identically circumstanced co-accused, Subhash @ Allu, has already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court, and taking note of Section 19(4)(b) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of opinion that the applicant is entitled to bail.

¶10

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Anjesh, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The applicant 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 24.11.2022 KS

¶20

Digitally signed by KISHAN SINHA Date: 2022.11.24 17:10:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anjesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Raju @ Naushad Vs State of U.P.

Moharram Ali Vs State of U.P.

Tarun @ Arun Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Dollar @ Ekmaeneek Vs State of U.P.