Allowed

Mahngi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC20 Jun 2024BAIL/6729/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench allowed the bail application. The applicant, languishing in jail under the U.P. Gangster Act, was released on bail. The court relied on the fact that co-accused and one case against them had already secured bail, observing without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each with conditions regarding attendance and absence penalties.

Mahngi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:43684

¶2

Court No. - 2

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6729 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mahngi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Raja Babu Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Raja Babu Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

2. As per learned counsel for the applicants, the present applicants (Mahngi and Jokhna) are languishing in jail since 01.11.2023 in Case Crime No.66 of 2024, under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Khodare, District-Gonda.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present applicants have falsely been implicated in this case as they have not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that against the present applicants there is only one case shown in the gang chart (Annexure No.2) in which the applicants have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6090 of 2024 and vide order dated 22.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5509 of 2024. The bail orders have been enclosed as Annexure Nos.3 & 4 to this bail application. He has also submitted that in this case the co-accused, namely, Priyanka & Priti has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5840 of 2024, therefore, the present applicants may also be granted bail on the basis of principles of parity.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the present applicants have not misused the liberty of bail so granted to them and detention of the present applicants under Gangster Act is unwarranted. He undertakes that the applicants 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

¶11

shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly.

¶12

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicants by submitting that since the role of the present applicants was found in the commission of crime, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the applicants.

¶13

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the material available on record, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the fact that there is only one case shown in the gang-chart against the present applicants in which they have been granted bail, co-accused person namely Priyanka @ Priti has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2024 (supra) and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it appropriate that the present applicants may be released on bail. Therefore, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶14

8. Let the applicants (Mahngi and Jokhna) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶16

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicants 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

¶19

313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law. The present applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶20

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶21

Order Date :- 20.6.2024 Suresh/

¶22

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

Mahngi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahngi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhure @ Rizwan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Jumman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Pankaj Rajput Vs Prin. Judge Family Court Lko. and 2 Others

Mahngi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Rajeev Gupta and 2 Others Vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Its Managing Director Lko and 3 Others

Bhagauti Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others