Allowed

Vinay Pratap v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 May 2023BAIL/23053/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Court ordered bail for the applicant in a case under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, with specific sureties and conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition of adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with personal bond, execution of heavy sureties (one family member), and undertaking regarding court attendance and no adjournments.

Vinay Pratap Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118790

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23053 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vinay Pratap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sheshadri Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, 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 one case has been shown against the applicant in the Gang Chart which has been annexed at page-28 of the bail application and in the said case, the applicant has been granted bail by the competent Court. Apart from the cases which have been mentioned gang chart some other cases are there which have been explained in paragraph no.9 of the affidavit accompanying this bail application. The applicant is in jail since 29.3.2022.

¶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- Vinay Pratap involved in Case Crime No.502 of 2022, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station-Ramgarh, District Firozabad be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two heavy 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

¶14

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

Order Date :- 23.5.2023 Dev/-

¶16

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

Vinay Pratap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Pratap 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

Sangram Singh @ Raju Vs State of U.P.

Chandrapal @ Dhulle Vs State of U.P.

Banti @ Umar Ahamad Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Verma Vs State of U.P.

Indra Jeet Yadav Vs State of U.P.