Allowed

Raees Ahmad @ Dabbu and Another v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2024/195/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the Gangster Act, the High Court allowed the release of two accused-applicants on personal bond and sureties. The Court noted their acquittal in a murder case and prior bail grants in other related cases, deeming them fit for bail under specified conditions to prevent tampering and ensure trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties each, and strict conditions regarding evidence tampering, witness intimidation, trial attendance, and affidavit undertaking under U.P

Raees Ahmad @ Dabbu and Another Vs the State of U.P. Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:8137

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 195 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raees Ahmad @ Dablu And Another Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Pal Singh,Ambrish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants prays for and is permitted to correct the name of applicant No.1 in the array of parties during the course of the day.

¶8

Supplementary as well as counter affidavit filed by the parties are taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

Learned counsel for accused-applicants while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case as well as in the three cases mentioned in the gang chart. In all the three cases mentioned in the gang chart, they have been released on bail. In one case i.e. Case Crime No.341 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, they have been acquitted. The acquittal order of the court is on record. The bail orders of other two cases are also on record. Apart from the cases mentioned in the gang chart, the applicants have explained the criminal history of remaining cases in para 5 to 15 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶11

It has been further submitted that applicants are in jail since 24.01.2022 and if facility of bail is granted, there is no

¶12

apprehension that they will flee from the judicial process and they will abide by the orders passed by the Court below and will co-operate in speedy trial of the case.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but has not disputed the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicants.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that applicants are in jail since 24.01.2022; out of three cases shown in the gang chart in one case i.e. Case Crime No.341 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, applicants have been acquitted; applicants have been enlarged on bail in other two cases shown in the gang chart and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicants, (1) Raees Ahmad @ Dablu, (2) Ajij Ahmad involved in Case Crime No.0100 of 2021, under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station - Kotwali Bhinga District - Shrawasti be released on bail on their 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:-

¶17

(i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such

¶20

facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶22

(v) The applicants shall submit an undertaking on affidavit in terms of Section 19 (4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that they will not indulge in any case for or misuse the liberty of bail.

¶23

(vi) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(vii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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.

¶25

Order Date :- 29.1.2024

¶26

Saurabh Yadav/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raees Ahmad @ Dabbu and Another v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raees Ahmad @ Dabbu and Another v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Budhana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Balak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Ram Dayal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Poonam Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

Sojab Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajendra Kumar Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.