Allowed

Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2024BAIL/9849/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application allowed. The applicant, detained under the U.P. Gangster Act, argued false implication and cited parity with co-accused already granted bail. The court found it a fit case for bail without expressing an opinion on merits, imposing standard conditions for trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Releases the applicant on bail with personal bond and two sureties on furnishing an undertaking regarding trial attendance and preventing misuse of liberty.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63840

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9849 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ahmad Mehdi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard Ms. Syed Ahmad Mehdi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Mukesh Kumar) is languishing in jail since 10.08.2024 in Case Crime No.91 of 2024, under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police StationGosainganj, District-Ayodhya.

¶8

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

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that against the present applicant there are two cases shown in the gang chart (Annexure No.2) in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below. The bail orders thereof have been enclosed as Annexure No.3 to the bail application. There is one more case registered against the present applicant in which the applicant has been granted bail by the learned court below, as recital to this effect has been given in para-7 of the bail application, the bail order thereof has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the bail application. He has also submitted that in this case the co-accused persons, namely, Anshu Gupta, has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8089 of 2024, therefore, the present applicant may also be granted bail on the basis of principles of parity.

¶10

5. 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 undertakes that the applicant

¶11

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 with the trial proceedings.

¶12

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

¶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 and also considering the fact that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶14

8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶15

9. Let the applicants (Mukesh Kumar) 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:-

¶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 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 applicants fail 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

¶20

be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶21

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 17.9.2024 Suresh/

¶23

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

Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Khushi Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sujan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 4 Others

Dhoop Narayan @ Dhrup Narayan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Govind Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Fishery Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Mishri Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Brijendra Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others