Allowed

Aamir v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024BAIL/188/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application filed by Aamir challenging his detention under the U.P. Gangster Act. The court found it a fit case for bail without expressly opining on the merits of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Accused enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions to not tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, and submit affidavit undertakings under relevant acts.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2032

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 188 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Aamir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Pandey,Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Learned counsel for accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case as well as in one case mentioned in the gang chart. In that case, he has been released on bail. The bail order is on record as Annexure No. SA-1 to the bail application. Apart from the case mentioned in the gang chart, there is no other case pending against the accused applicant.

¶8

It has been further submitted that applicant is in jail since 01.06.2023 and if facility of bail is granted, there is no apprehension that he will flee from the judicial process and he will abide by the orders passed by the Court below and will cooperate in speedy trial of the case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application submitting that although there is one case against the applicant, but the same is under NDPS Act and the quantity is commercial.

¶10

Rebutting the same, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court towards the bail order of the applicant and has submitted that no recovery was made from the applicant-accused and the applicant had no criminal antecedent and considering these two things as well as judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 Livelaw (SC) 260; applicant was enlarged on bail.

¶11

On due consideration to the bail order of the applicant as well as the fact that he is languishing in jail since 01.06.2023 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Aamir, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 231/2023, under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station - Zaidpur, District - Barabanki, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iv) 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.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall submit an undertaking on affidavit in terms of Section 19 (4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that he will not indulge in any case for or misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

(vi) 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.

¶20

(vii) 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.1.2024/R.C.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aamir v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aamir v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Mohd. Sohel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko.

Ramveer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

Aamir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

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

Sonu Hussain Alias Bakridi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.