Allowed

Jalaluddin v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2024/4048/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Act, 1986, the Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail. The observation was based on the view that there was no apprehension of the applicant fleeing justice or tampering with evidence, despite the severity of the charges.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29628

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4048 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jalaluddin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijendra Singh,Tilak Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2024, under Section 2(b)(i)/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi, during trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case as well as in the single case mentioned in the gang chart. However, in the single case mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant has been released on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.1.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15248 of 2023, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 3. This apart, the applicant was falsely implicated in three other criminal cases. However, in these cases, since the involvement of the applicant was not found, hence the charge-sheet was not filed against him. It is further submitted that the applicant is not the member of any gang or gang leader as defined in Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

¶9

It is urged that apart from the above-mentioned cases, the applicant has no other criminal history and he has been in jail in the instant case since 10.3.2024. Thus in these circumstances, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

It is also submitted that only on the basis of single criminal case, the provision of U.P. Gangster Act has been invoked in the instant case against the applicant and the material which has been made the basis of lodging the first information report in this case is not sufficient enough to raise a presumption that the applicant is either guilty of the offences mentioned in the gang chart or may commit the same offences again, if the applicant is

¶11

enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail, but could not refute the aforesaid facts.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record also considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Jalaluddin involved in the above-mentioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶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) 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

¶20

law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(v) 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. 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.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 12.4.2024 Shravan

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jalaluddin v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalaluddin 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

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

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anand Singh @ Ankur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Chandra Bhushan Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ankit Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Neeraj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.