Allowed

Tufail @ Intejar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2023BAIL/5287/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court released three accused appellants on bail in a case under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. While not expressing an opinion on merits, the court imposed specific conditions regarding court attendance and conduct pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing personal bond with two sureties. Conditions imposed for court attendance and against seeking adjournments or misuse of liberty.

Tufail @ Intejar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5287 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Tufail @ Intejar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Ji Mishra,Kaushal Kumar Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The accused-applicants are involved in Case Crime No.107 of 2022 under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Railway Road, District Meert.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that three cases have been shown against each of the applicant in the gang chart in which cases, the applicants have already been released on bail. It has also been submitted that the applicants are not involved in any antisocial activities and they have been falsely implicated. The applicants are in jail since 02.11.2022.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but not contradicted the aforesaid fact.

¶10

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on merits, let the applicants Tufail @ Intejar, Azmal @ Kala @ Mohsin @ Aftab, Yusuf @ Rajababu @ Aleem, released on bail in the aforementioned case crime on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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.

¶12

The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each

¶13

date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.2.2023 S.Ali

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tufail @ Intejar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tufail @ Intejar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajanshri Vs State of U.P.

Abhiraj Singh @ Avinash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Habib @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Mulayam Yadav @ Surendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Abhishekh Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P.