Allowed

Kabir Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2024/4663/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench allowed a bail application filed by Kabir Patel. The court held that conditions of Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster Act were met and co-accused were released, entitling the applicant to bail on personal bond and sureties with standard court appearance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Kabir Patel released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding court appearances and undertaking to avoid abuse of bail liberty.

Kabir Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33520

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4663 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kabir Patel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jaideep Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶7

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.352 of 2023 under section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activity ( Prevention ) Act, 1986, Police Station No.Salon District Raebareli.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He is not a member of any criminal gang. As per the gang chart, three cases have been shown against the applicant in which he has been enlarged on bail,details of which have been explained in para 8 in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

¶9

4. He has also submitted that the applicant has criminal history of five cases except the case shown in the gang chart and he has been granted bail in four cases. However, he has mentioned in para 4 of the supplementary affidavit that he has no knowledge about the order passed in Case Crime No.122 of 2021 under Sections 417 and 420 IPC,therefore he could not file the bail order.

¶10

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Moh. Shahnwaj, Shoyab @ Shobab and Ram Singh have already been granted bail by coordinate Bench this Court vide order dated 16.11.2023 and 29.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.10553 of 2023 and 10545 of 2023 respectively.Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant is in jail since 23.01.2023.

¶11

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused Moh. Shahnwaj, Shoyab @ Shobab and Ram Singh have already been granted bail by this Court.

¶12

7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, material available on record; contents of the F.I.R., other relevant documents; nature of offence; gang chart; the argument that the applicant is in jail since 23.01.2023; the argument that in the cases shown in the gang chart and out of five cases , in four cases shown except the gang chart the applicant has been granted bail, this Court finds that condition of Section 19(4) of the Gangster Act is properly complied with as well as the fact that co-accused Moh. Shahnwaj, Shoyab @ Shobab and Ram Singh have already been granted bail by this Court, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

8. The bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶14

9. Let applicant, namely, Kabir Patel , be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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

¶19

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.

¶20

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 29.4.2024 dk/

¶22

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

Kabir Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kabir Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief 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

Sandeep Alias Chandan Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

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

Manjeet Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Riyaz vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Raja Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Rajendera Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.