Partly allowed

Jugendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Dec 2022BAIL/57384/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a bail application filed under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The court ruled in favour of the State but granted bail subject to stringent conditions, including furnishing sureties and undertaking not to seek adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and no adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57384 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jugendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Jugendra with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 355 of 2022, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 registered at Police Station - Qadarchowk, District - Budaun during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case for the purpose of harassment. False and fabricated prosecution story has been made by the police. There is no reliable evidence against the applicant. It is next argued that in the gang chart, only one case has been shown against the applicant. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in the case shown in the gang chart and copy of the bail order has been enclosed as Annexure No. 3 to the bail application. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 11.11.2022.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release of the accused under the U.P. Gangster Act and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a

¶10

personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶11

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶12

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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial 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.

¶14

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

¶15

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.12.2022 SK Srivastava

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jugendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jugendra 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

Rehman Vs State of U.P.

Chhabila Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Chhotelal Vs State of U.P.

Jamshed Vs State of U.P.

Hasmat Khan Vs State of U.P.

Faisal and Another Vs State of U.P.