Allowed¶10

Mohd. Shadab v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2023BAIL/30664/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30664 of 2023, Mohd. Shadab v. State of U.P., decided 26.9.2023 by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J. Bail allowed under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 in Case Crime No. 264 of 2022, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar; applicant on bail in all four gang-chart cases; in custody since 13.03.2021; release on personal bond and two sureties with conditions; breach a ground for cancellation.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Mohd. Shadab to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 264 of 2022 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions imposed in the order. ¶10

Mohd. Shadab Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:187450

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30664 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Shadab Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 264 of 2022, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of trial.

¶8

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution under the Gangsters Act have been launched against the applicant on the basis of four criminal cases shown in the gang chart and in all the four cases the applicant is on bail, the copy of bail order has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the bail application. He has been falsely implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. He is not the member of any gang. It is further stated that there is no other criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.03.2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Mohd. Shadab, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶12

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶13

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.9.2023 A. Tripathi

¶16

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Shadab v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shadab v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhanshu Ranjan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yashpal Alias Kainchi Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Babu @ Vishesh Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pranshu Chaube Vs State of U.P.

Naveen Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Faizu @ Seebu Vs State of U.P.