Dismissed¶12

Ram Avtar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2023BAIL/36339/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected - absconder/long absence from trial - U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, S. 2/3 - Case Crime No. 1508 of 2003, P.S. Bansi, District Siddharth - bail granted 2005, N.B.W. issued 17.12.2008 - surrender only after process under Ss. 82, 83, 446 Cr.P.C. - trial Court refusal of bail dated 10.7.2023 - direction to trial Court to decide trial within six months per S. 309 Cr.P.C. - compliance report through Registrar (Compliance) - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 36339 of 2023 - Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:207762 - order dated 30.10.2023.

What did the court decide?

Considering the rival submissions and that the case is pending since long due to the abscondance of the accused, the Court did not find it a fit case to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail. ¶11

Ram Avtar Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, who was granted bail in 2005 but thereafter absconded (N.B.W. issued 17.12.2008; per the A.G.A., surrendered only after process under Sections 82, 83 and 446 Cr.P.C.), should be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial in Case Crime No. 1508 of 2003 under the U.P. Gangsters Act.

¶7

Court's answer

Considering the rival submissions and that the case is pending since long due to the abscondance of the accused, the Court did not find it a fit case to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court was directed to endeavour to decide the trial within a period of six months, in view of the provision of Section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Key takeaways

After conclusion of the trial as directed, the trial Court was to send a compliance report to the High Court through the Registrar (Compliance).ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.), by order dated 30.10.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36339 of 2023, rejected the bail application of Ram Avtar in Case Crime No. 1508 of 2003 under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Bansi, District Siddharth (printed 'DistrictSiddharth'). The applicant had been granted bail in 2005 but thereafter ceased to appear; a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued on 17.12.2008, and, as contended by the learned A.G.A., he surrendered only after issuance of process under Sections 82, 83 and 446 Cr.P.C.; his bail application moved upon surrender on 10.7.2023 had been rejected by the trial Court. Holding that the case was pending since long due to the abscondance of the accused, the Court found it not a fit case for bail. The trial Court was directed to endeavour to conclude the trial within six months in view of Section 309 Cr.P.C., and to send a compliance report to the High Court through the Registrar (Compliance) after conclusion of the trial.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:207762

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36339 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Avtar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant, Ram Avtar, on bail in Case Crime No. 1508 of 2003, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Bansi, DistrictSiddharth, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially the accused-applicant was granted bail in the year 2005 and thereafter he regularly appeared before the trial Court. However, on 17.12.2008, N.B.W. was issued by the trial Court. The reason for non-appearance of the applicant is that he went outside the State for his livelihood. It is next submitted that after coming to know about the N.B.W. and other process, the applicant surrendered before the trial Court and moved an application for enlargement on bail on 10.7.2023, however, same was rejected and the applicant is in jail since then. It is submitted that the applicant would appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed by it.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehementally opposed the prayer for bail and contended that only after issuance of process under Section 82, 83 and 446 Cr.P.C. the accused surrendered before the Court. It is next contended that it is a case of year 2003 and since 2005, the accused has not been appearing in the trial Court due to which the trial of the case is delayed and in case, the accused in granted bail, he will again abscond from the judicial process and linger the conclusion of the trial, as such the accused in not entitled for bail.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties

¶11

as the case is pending since long due to abscondace of the accused, I do not find it fit case to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

¶13

However, it is directed that the trial Court shall endevour to decide the trial within a period of six months from today in view of the provision of Section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶14

After conclusion of the trial as directed above, a compliance report be sent to this Court by the trial Court through Registrar (Compliance).

¶15

Order Date :- 30.10.2023 S.Verma

¶16

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

Ram Avtar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Avtar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishandev Prasad @ Krishan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ifrat Vs State of U.P.

Naushad Vs State of U.P.

Autari Vs State of U.P.

Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Brahm Singh Vs State of U.P.