Allowed

Satya Prakash Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2024CRLA/1874/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending the disposal of a criminal appeal under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, citing the bleak prospects of a speedy final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Appeal application allowed; sentence suspended; appellant released on bail ₹25,000 with two sureties.

Satya Prakash Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1874 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Satya Prakash Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

(On Appeal)

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Admit.

¶8

Summon the trial court record.

¶9

List/put up in the last week of July, 2024 along with trial court record for final disposal.

¶10

(On C.M. Application No. 1 of 2024)

¶11

This application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been moved in the instant criminal appeal arising out of Sessions Trial No. 143 of 2012 relating to C.I.S. No. 3800107/2012, Case Crime No. 1/2011, under Section- 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short "Act of 1986"), P.S.Kotwali, District- Sitapur.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the appellant while pressing the bail application submitted that the trial court, while passing the judgment under appeal dated 17.05.2024 convicting the appellant in the proceedings under the Act of 1986, failed to take note of the fact that the allegations with regard to disturbing the public order as also regarding gaining undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage of like nature against the appellants were not proved beyond doubt.

¶13

In the instant case, the FIR was based upon the pending criminal case(s) and not upon any new allegation(s) or discovery of fact(s) having serious reflection on the society, for which purpose the Act was enacted, and despite this, the trial Court passed the judgment of conviction.

¶14

It is further submitted that the provisions of the Act of 1986

¶15

could not be used as a weapon to wreak vengeance or harass or intimidate citizens or to settle scores on political or other fronts and it appears that the District Administration in order to show good work or to win laurels or seek appreciation from the higher authorities of Government or ruling party had invoked the provisions of the Act, which is unjustified and this aspect was not considered by the trial court.

¶16

He also stated that considering the facts of the case, as stated above, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants are not guilty of the offence under the Act of 1986 and the trial Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in correct perspective and convicted the appellants. It is further submitted that during the course of trial, the appellants were on bail and the liberty of bail was never misused.

¶17

It is lastly submitted that appellant is having confidence that his appeal, which is already admitted, will be succeeded, but there is no possibility in near future for the final hearing of the present appeal and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for regular bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the court below has passed the impugned order after considering the evidence placed before it at the time of trial and there is no illegality in the same. However, he does not dispute the fact that appellant was on bail during the course of trial.

¶19

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and the judgment of the trial court as also the fact that appellant was on bail during trial and the liberty of bail was never misused as also the facts indicated above and that the final hearing in this appeal in near future is bleak, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to suspend the sentence against the appellants and to grant bail to him till outcome of the instant appeal.

¶20

Accordingly, the application is allowed. The sentence imposed by the trial court shall remain suspended during pendency of present appeal.

¶21

Let the appellant, namely, Satya Prakash Tiwari involved in Sessions Trial No. 143 of 2012 (supra) be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to following conditions:

¶22

(i) Fine imposed by the trial Court shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellant within one month from his actual

¶23

release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited.

¶24

(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.

¶25

(iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶26

As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶28

Order Date :- 12.6.2024 Arun/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satya Prakash Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Prakash Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdamba Singh @ Jagdamba Baksh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Barabanki and Others

Praveen Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Ashwani Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Sugarcane Lko and 5 Others

Upasna Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Jivan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Lucknow and Ors.

Subhashini Tomar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Medical Education and Training, Lucknow and Others