Allowed

Haseen @ Yaseen v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2022BAIL/8630/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The High Court allowed the application, holding that the applicant was falsely implicated and entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8630 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Haseen @ Yaseen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.15 of 2022 at Police Station-Ramgarh, DistrictFirozabad under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant is in jail since 18.01.2022.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Firozabad on 27.01.2022.

¶8

Shri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant has been enlarged on bail in the two criminal cases depicted in the gang chart. He is not a member of any criminal gang.

¶9

Explaining the criminal history of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant belongs to an economically weaker

¶10

section of the society and has become an easy scapegoat for the police authorities. The police authorities falsely framed him in a number of cases to burnish their credentials. The applicant has never misused the liberty of bail granted to him in the said cases. The criminal cases do not have any bearing on the instant case. The applicant is not a flight risk and there is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶11

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A. could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. However, he does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.

¶12

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant-Haseen @ Yaseen be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court

¶15

concerned subject to following conditions.

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶20

Order Date :- 26.5.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶21

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.05.30 10:01:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haseen @ Yaseen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haseen @ Yaseen 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

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Hariom Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lodha @ Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Mohan Yadav Vs Union of India

Meenu Sain Vs State of U.P.

Kartar @ Guru @ Swami Vs State of U.P.