Allowed

Hariphool v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC22 May 2024BAIL/5498/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5498 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) granted bail to Hariphool accused under the U.P. Gangster Act. The court found no prima facie case, no risk of flight, and noted a co-accused was already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two reliable sureties each; standard conditions of bail imposed.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38921

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5498 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hariphool Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No.0043 of 2024, under Section 2(b)(1) & 3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi.

¶8

The submission is that as per the gang chart, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.2, the applicant is shown to be involved in one case. It has also been submitted that the applicant has been falsely roped in the present case and there is no other case is pending against the applicant. Neither the applicant is a gang leader of any gang nor is he indulged in any criminal and antisocial activities.

¶9

It has further been submitted that the applicant is in jail since 06.04.2024 and there is no credible evidence on record which could show that the applicant is guilty or committed the crimein-question and no prima facie offence under section 2(b)(1) & 3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act is made out against the applicant. Moreover, the co-accused Sanjay Yadav Pradhan has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 06.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.3575 of 2024.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension

¶12

has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Hariphool involved in Case Crime No.0043 of 2024, under Section 2(b)(1) & 3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶14

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶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.

¶16

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 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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall neither influence any witness nor tamper with any evidence after his release.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.5.2024/Harshita

¶22

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

Hariphool v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariphool v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Dr. Swati Agarwal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Ansal Housing and Construction, New Delhi Thru. Director Shri. Maharaj Kisan Trishal vs Electricity Ombudsman, Lucknow Thru. Lokpal and Others

Usman @ Pasha and Another vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Ejaj Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru.the Prin.Secy.Home

Anshuman Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Alok Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home and Another