Allowed

Taj Mohammad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2024/2234/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application by Taj Mohammad. Considering parity with a co-accused, his criminal history, and lack of flight risk, the court granted bail subject to strict conditions ensuring appearance and witness protection under the U.P. Gangster Act.

What did the court decide?

Accused-applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence and appearance before trial court.

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19933

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2234 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Taj Mohammad

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Upadhyay,Swati Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

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

¶8

Learned counsel for accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case as well as in two cases mentioned in the gang chart. In both cases mentioned in the gang chart, he has been released on bail. The bail orders are on record as Annexure No. 3 and 4 to the bail application. Apart from the cases mentioned in the gang chart, there are two other cases pending against the accused applicant. He has explained his criminal history in para 7 of the bail application.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Manish Kumar Jaiswal who was assigned similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2023 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 13769/2023, Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused.

¶10

It has been further submitted that applicant is in jail since 19.12.2023 and if facility of bail is granted, there is no apprehension that he will flee from the judicial process and he will abide by the orders passed by the Court below and will cooperate in speedy trial of the case.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but has not

¶12

disputed the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶13

On due consideration to the fact that in the cases mentioned in the gang chart, he has been enlarged on bail; he has explained his criminal history of other two cases; co-accused Manish Kumar Jaiswal who was assigned similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.12.2023 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.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant, Taj Mohammad, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 352/2023, under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station - Cantt, District - Ayodhya/Faizabad, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(iii) The applicant 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 facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

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

¶20

(v) The applicant shall submit an undertaking on affidavit in terms of Section 19 (4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social

¶21

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that he will not indulge in any case for or misuse the liberty of bail.

¶22

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

¶23

(vii) 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. 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Order Date :- 5.3.2024

¶25

R.C.

¶26

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

Taj Mohammad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taj Mohammad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Adesh Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Shiva Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Nitesh Singh (According to Aadhar Card Nitesh Kumar Singh) vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Satendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Manoj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Mohd. Saddam @ Saddam Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.