Allowed

Saiyyad Abu Tharab Ali v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Jun 2023BAIL/26094/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Saiyyad Abu Tharab Ali under Section 439 CrPC. The applicant was charged under the U.P. Gangsters Act and was in jail since May 2022. The court found he had no criminal history beyond one case where bail was granted, and no probability of tampering with evidence. Bail was granted with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding attendance, conduct, and verification of sureties.

Saiyyad Abu Tharab Ali Vs State of U.P. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:128305

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26094 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Saiyyad Abu Tharab Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey,Phool Chandra Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Phool Chandra Saroj, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant - Saiyyad Abu Tharab Ali , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 57 of 2022, under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Chowk, District Varanasi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. While placing para-7 of the affidavit, it is argued that applicant is involved in only one case and on the basis of which present case has been registered against him. Further, while placing para-8 of the affidavit, it is argued that the applicant has been granted bail in the said case by the concerned court. Copy of the order has been placed before this Court which is annexure-3 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed para-14 of the affidavit and argued that apart from the present case and the case mentioned in the gang chart being solitary case, applicant has no criminal history. It is lastly argued that applicant is in jail since 13.05.2022.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument as aforesaid.

¶10

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that applicant has been made an accused on the basis of solitary case mentioned in the gang chart. In the

¶11

said case, he has been granted bail and has no other criminal history.

¶12

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Saiyyad Abu Tharab Ali , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one of the sureties of the applicant will be his family member and the other to be of local person) 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:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶18

(V) 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶19

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

The bail application is allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.6.2023 Mukesh Kr.

¶23

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saiyyad Abu Tharab Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saiyyad Abu Tharab 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

Om Pal Thakur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Boby Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P.

Devisharan Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.