Allowed

Rajendra Kumar Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2024/964/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court considered an application for bail under the U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The court found the applicants fit for bail, imposing specific conditions to ensure their appearance and prevent evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Releasement of applicants on bail with personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding behavior and court appearances.

Rajendra Kumar Mishra and Another Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7979

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 964 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kinkar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the gang chart, two cases have been shown against the applicant. In both the cases, the applicants have been enlarged on bail. The bail order is on record. Apart from these cases, there is no other case pending against the applicant. The applicants are in jail since 31.10.2023.

¶8

It is also submitted that the applicant is ready to furnish an undertaking in terms of requirement of Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

¶9

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that in both the cases shown in the gang chart, both the applicants have been enlarged on bail, there is no other criminal history of the applicants, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which they are in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicants on bail.The application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicants Rajendra Kumar Mishra and Shiv Kumar Mishra involved in Case crime No.479 of 2023, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,

¶13

1986, P.S. Inayat Nagar, district Ayodhya, be released on bail on their 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(iii) The applicants 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.

¶17

(iv) The applicants 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.

¶18

(v) The applicants shall also file an undertaking in terms of requirement of Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that he will not indulge in any case or misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

(vi) The applicants 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.

¶20

(vii) In case the applicanta misuse 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

Order Date :- 29.1.2024 kkb/

¶22

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

Rajendra Kumar Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Budhana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Balak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Ram Dayal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Poonam Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

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

Raees Ahmad @ Dabbu and Another Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.