Allowed

Kaleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2024BAIL/1613/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application. The High Court allowed bail to the applicant accused under the U.P. Gangster Act. The court found conditions of Section 19(4) complied with and released him on personal bond and sureties subject to strict conditions regarding trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount with strict conditions to attend trial, particularly for evidence, framing of charges, and Section 313 proceeding

Kaleem vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13250

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1613 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kaleem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi,Devendra Verma,Tanupriya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vishwas Saraswat, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

This fresh bail application has been placed before me in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice dated 14.12.2023 in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1503 of 2023, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3241 of 2023, Pradhani Jain Vs. The State of Odisha and Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7203 of 2023, Sajid Vs. State of U.P.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.203 of 2020, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster (Prevention of Anti Social Activities) Act, 1986, Police Station Matera, District Bahraich.

¶10

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been implicated in the Gangster Act on the basis of two cases shown in the gang chart and one another case. He has further submitted that in all the three cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail and the bail orders have been annexed as Annexure-3 to the bail application as well as

¶11

Annexures-SA1 and SA2 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶12

Learned counsel has further contended that coaccused, namely, Israr Khan having similar role, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 9.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13479 of 2023. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. He has also submitted that the applicant has no other criminal history and he is in jail since 1.11.2020.

¶13

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of F.I.R., other relevant documents, nature of offence, gang chart and the fact that the other co-accused, Israr Khan having similar role, has been granted bail by this Court, this Court finds that conditions of Section 19(4) of the Gangster Act are properly complied with and the applicant is not guilty of such offence. Therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant, Kaleem 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 :-

¶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

¶18

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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

It is made clear that 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 conclusion on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.

¶22

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 13.2.2024 Rao/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kaleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaleem v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Harshit Bhardwaj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

Karunesh Rai and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Smt. Manjusha Gupta and Another vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and Another

Kaleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Kalpana Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Anil Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another