Allowed

Shyam Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2023BAIL/18241/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court entertained a bail application by Shyam Singh, who was in jail since March 27, 2023, accused under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act. The court allowed bail on a personal bond with two sureties, one being a family member, subject to specific conditions regarding presence in court and avoidance of adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties (one family member) in like amount with conditions for presence and no adjournments.

Shyam Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:123273

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18241 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shyam Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that only five cases have been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart which has been annexed at page-27 of the bail application and in the said cases, the applicant has been granted bail by the competent Court. The applicant is in jail since 27.3.2023.

¶8

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

¶9

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- Shyam Singh involved in Case Crime No.37 of 2023, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police StationDauki, District Agra be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties (one should be of family member) , each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following condition:-

¶10

(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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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 (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate

¶14

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

Order Date :- 26.5.2023 Dev/-

¶16

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

Shyam Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Singh 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

Golu@ Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Sardar Vs State of U.P.

Noorul Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Anirudh Prasad Vs State of U.P. thr.its Sec. Home U.P.

Sumit Rathaur Vs State of U.P.

Sahil Vs State of U.P.