Allowed

Sunil Rastogi @ Sani @ Sonu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC22 May 2024/5489/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, a gangster accused under the U.P. Gangsters Act, who had already served three years in four concluded cases. The Court found it a fit case for bail subject to specific undertaking conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding court attendance and trial proceedings.

Sunil Rastogi @ Sani @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38786

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5489 of 2024 Applicant :- Sunil Rastogi @ Sani @ Sonu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ganga Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

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

¶6

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 24.12.2020 in Case Crime No. 362 of 2021 u/s 3(1) U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶7

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

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the Gangsters Act has been imposed upon the applicant when he was in jail. Learned counsel has submitted that the cases shown in the gang chart have been concluded and the applicant has been awarded punishment of three years. That period has already been served by the applicant. The specific recital of the four cases has been given in para 5 of the bail application.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes on behalf of applicant 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.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate has, shown the gang-chart as gang chart has not been enclosed with the bail application for the reason that such gang-chart was not served upon the applicant because he was in jail, however, he opposed the prayer for bail but he has not disputed the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the material available on record, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that there are four F.I.Rs. against the applicant and in all those cases he has already served the sentence, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Sunil Rastogi @ Sani @ Sonu , 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:-

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 applicants fail 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.

¶16

(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. 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.

¶17

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 22.5.2024/Om

¶19

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunil Rastogi @ Sani @ Sonu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Rastogi @ Sani @ Sonu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. 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

Ankush Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and 3 Others

Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Anurag Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home Lucknow

Chand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Shakeel Quraishi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.