Allowed

Niranjan @ Roopi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Jun 2023BAIL/25383/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed by Niranjan @ Roopi under the U.P. Gangster Act. Finding that the applicant had been bailed in three other pending cases and was not charge-sheeted in another, the court granted bail subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and evidence presentation.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance and adjournments.

Niranjan @ Roopi Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25383 of 2023 Applicant :- Niranjan @ Roopi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. S.K. Tiwari, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶4

Perused the record.

¶5

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Niranjan @ Roopi seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 206 of 2015, under sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Sadabad, District Hathras during the pendency of trial.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicant contends that in the gang chart three cases are shown to be pending against applicant. Applicant has been enlarged on bail in all the three cases. The copies of bail orders have been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. In one of the case, applicant has been acquitted. The judgement of the Court below is on record at page 31 of the paper book. It is then contended that apart from three cases mentioned in the gang chart, there is another case registered against applicant. However applicant has not been charge sheeted in that case. The said fact has been stated in the supplementary affidavit. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case applicant is enlarged on bail he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶7

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for applicant.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant and coupled with the fact that applicant has already been enlarged on bail in the cases registered against him or he has not been charge sheeted but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let the applicant Niranjan @ Roopi , 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 concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶10

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶12

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶13

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶14

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶15

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.6.2023/Arshad

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Niranjan @ Roopi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan @ Roopi 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

Krishna Kumar Pal @ Kabutar Vs State of U.P.

Lavlesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Imran and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another