Allowed

Sonu @ Mohd. Ali v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2023BAIL/16653/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to the applicant subject to stringent conditions regarding attendance, prohibition of unnecessary adjournments, and consequences of default or misuse of bail.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

Sonu @ Mohd. Ali Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16653 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu @ Mohd. Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nimesh Kumar Shukla,Ashok Kumar Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that only one case has been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart which has been annexed at page-17-A of the bail application and in the said case, the applicant has been granted bail by the competent Court. The applicant is in jail since 2.1.2023.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of submissions advanced and the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, let the applicant- Sonu @ Mohd. Ali involved in Case Crime No.249 of 2022, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Khuthan, District Jaunpur be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following condition:-

¶9

(i) 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.

¶10

(ii) 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.

¶11

(iii) 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.

¶12

(iv) 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

¶13

(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.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.4.2023 Dev/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu @ Mohd. Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Mohd. Ali 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

Istekhar Khan Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Miyan Vs State of U.P.

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rahisu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Bhajanlal @ Bhajju Lodhi Vs State of U.P.