Allowed¶14

Shadab v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2024/3592/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed under S. 3(1), U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Case Crime No. 53 of 2024, P.S. Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar; applicant Shadab in custody since 05.03.2024; prior bail granted 01.07.2022 in Crl. Misc. Bail Applications Nos. 7029 and 7080 of 2022 (gang-chart cases); release on personal bond and two sureties with trial-conduct conditions referencing S. 229-A IPC, S. 174-A IPC, S. 82 Cr.P.C. and S. 313 Cr.P.C.; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.; decided 01.04.2024; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:26702.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Shadab to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 53 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the four conditions set out in the order.

Shadab Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Shadab, in custody since 05.03.2024 in Case Crime No. 53 of 2024 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, should be released on bail.

¶7

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the facts and circumstances, the material on record, the nature of allegations and the arguments advanced, the Court found it a fit case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Shadab is to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 53 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶14

Key takeaways

Release is subject to conditions: (i) undertaking not to seek adjournments on evidence dates when witnesses are present; (ii) presence before the trial court on each date, personally or through counsel, failing which action under Section 229-A IPC; (iii) if bail is misused and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. issues, proceedings under Section 174-A IPC; (iv) personal presence at opening of the case, framing of charge and Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, and no departure from India without prior permission of the court.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, S. 3(1) — applicant Shadab in custody since 05.03.2024 in Case Crime No. 53 of 2024, P.S. Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar — two cases shown in the gang chart in which bail had already been granted by the High Court on 01.07.2022 (Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 7029 and 7080 of 2022, Shadab Ahmad vs. State of U.P.) — counsel for applicant submitted false implication and no misuse of earlier bail; Additional Government Advocate opposed but did not dispute those submissions — Held: a fit case for bail, without expressing any opinion on merits; applicant to be released on personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions including presence at trial, no adjournment when witnesses are present, consequences under S. 229-A IPC for absence, proceedings under S. 174-A IPC upon proclamation under S. 82 Cr.P.C. in case of misuse of bail, personal presence at framing of charge and S. 313 Cr.P.C. examination, and no departure from India without prior permission of the court.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26702

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3592 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shadab Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Shadab) is in jail since 05.03.2024 in Case Crime No.53 of 2024, under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Hanswar, District-Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that against the present applicant there are two cases shown in the gang chart (Annexure No.2) in which the applicant has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7029 of 2022 ; Shadab Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and vide order dated 01.07.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7080 of 2022; Shadab Ahmad vs. State of U.P. The bail orders have been enclosed as Annexure No.3 & 4 with this bail application.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant has not misused the liberty of bail so granted to him and detention of the present applicant under Gangster Act is unwarranted. He undertakes that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly.

¶11

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he has not disputed the aforesaid

¶12

submission of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the material available on record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is, therefore, allowed.

¶14

8. Let the applicant-Shadab, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶15

(i) 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.

¶16

(ii) 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.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicant 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. and (iv) the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 1.4.2024 Suresh/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shadab v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadab v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sonpal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Shardendu Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Harendra Prasad Bhatt vs U.P Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director and Another

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

Smt. Ketki @ Saloni Lakkha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Munna Kumar Sahni vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.