Allowed

Anil Sonkar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 May 2023BAIL/22878/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant, Anil Sonkar, in a criminal miscellaneous bail application under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The bail was granted subject to personal bond, sureties, and strict attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to conditions regarding attendance and prohibition of seeking adjournments during evidence.

Anil Sonkar Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117150

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22878 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Anil Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, 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 two cases have been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart which has been annexed at page-25 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 3.4.2023.

¶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- Anil Sonkar involved in Case Crime No.79 of 2023, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police StationKalwari, District Basti 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:-

¶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 :- 22.5.2023 Dev/-

¶16

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

Anil Sonkar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Sonkar 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

Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Niraj Kumar Sharma @ Niraj Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Bharti Vs State of U.P.

Sahadat Ali Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Nishad Vs State of U.P.