Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2024BAIL/6227/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application wherein the applicant sought release from jail under the Gangster Act. The court granted bail upon the applicant's undertaking not to misuse liberty, noting no counter affidavit was filed by the State and no evidence of bail misuse in thirteen prior cases.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding court appearances and non-misuse of liberty.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:48287

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6227 of 2024 Applicant :- Sopal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Kumar Soni,Nevedita Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Despite the last opportunity having been given to the State to file counter affidavit, no counter affidavit has been filed.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 12.04.2024 in Case Crime No.0126 of 2024, under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station - Jaidpur, District - Barabanki.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that against the present applicant, thirteen cases have been indicated in the gang chart (Annexure No.2) against the present applicant, particular of one case has been given in the gang chart and in all thirteen cases, the applicant has been granted bail as explanation of all thirteen cases has been given in para-7 of the bail application enclosing the bail orders as Annexure No.3 to the bail application collectively. Further submission is that in all the cases, the applicant was not named but he has been implicated on the basis of single arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant has not misused the liberty of bail so granted to him and detention of the present applicant under Gangster Act is unwarranted. He has further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that all the co-accused persons have been granted bail, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. Further, the applicant undertakes that he 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 in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that despite the last opportunity having been given to the State to file counter affidavit, no counter affidavit has been filed; in all thirteen cases shown against the present applicant, he has been granted bail and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let applicant- Sopal 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 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.

¶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

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶18

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶19

Order Date :- 16.7.2024 /RBS/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sopal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maruf Anwar Hashmi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Affairs Sectt. Lko.

Akash Srivastava and 13 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 5 Others

Ram Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Sanjeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. U.P. Lko.

Arun Gautam Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Abhishek Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.