Allowed

Aarif @ Kallu v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2022BAIL/556/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The High Court, after noting the presence of four cases where the applicant is on bail and finding no merit in the opposing arguments regarding antecedents, held that a case for bail is made out due to a prima facie case and no high risk of tampering. Bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail through personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court.

Aarif @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 556 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Aarif @ Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home At Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Belal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard over bail application moved by applicant, Aarif @ Kallu, in Case Crime No. 147 of 2021, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-kavinagar, District-Ghaziabad.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 03.12.2020; there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail. In gang chart, he has been shown to be of four criminal antecedents, wherein, he is on bail; hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶7

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed, but could not oppose this fact that in gang chart, there are only four case against the applicant, wherein, he is on bail.

¶8

Having heard and gone through materials placed on record, considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but, without commenting on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.

¶9

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant, Aarif @ Kallu , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶11

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶12

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶13

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶14

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶15

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.

¶16

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by counsel of the party concerned.

¶17

The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad, and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶18

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 27.1.2022 Deepak/

¶20

Digitally signed by RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM Date: 2022.01.27 16:11:53 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aarif @ Kallu v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarif @ Kallu v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usman Banjara Vs State of U.P.

Nanhey Yadav Alias Phool Singh Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Praveen @ Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Shah Alam Vs State of U.P.

Bilal @ Mitthu Vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary (Home) at Luck