Allowed¶14

Sanny v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2025BAIL/11113/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 68), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11113 of 2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:54454, decided 15.4.2025 by Justice Ashutosh Srivastava. Bail allowed under 483 B.N.S.S. to applicant Sanny in Gangsters Act case (Section 3(1), U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Case Crime No. 322 of 2024, P.S. Thathiya, District Kannauj); Section 19(4) of the Act considered; gang-chart showed three cases, all with bail; custody since 15.09.2024; release on personal bond and two sureties with five conditions; no opinion expressed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Sanny to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 322 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the five conditions imposed by the court.

Sanny vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Sanny, named in Case Crime No. 322 of 2024 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (P.S. Thathiya, District Kannauj), should be released on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Court's answer

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from the record, and taking into consideration Section 19(4) of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the court found it a fit case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Release on bail is subject to five conditions (no inducement, threat, promise or tampering with evidence; no pressurising or intimidating prosecution witnesses; personal presence at opening of case, framing of charge and recording of statement; undertaking not to seek adjournments on evidence dates when witnesses are present; presence on each fixed date personally or through counsel), and breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Key takeaways

Anything said in the order is limited to the purpose of determining the bail application and is not an expression on the merits; the trial court remains absolutely free to arrive at independent conclusions on the evidence.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted under Section 483 B.N.S.S. to applicant Sanny in Case Crime No. 322 of 2024, Section 3(1), Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Thathiya, District Kannauj. The gang-chart (Annexure No. 2) listed three criminal cases, in all of which the applicant was already on bail, and the learned A.G.A. pointed out no other case against him; the applicant was in custody since 15.09.2024. Considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence on record together with Section 19(4) of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on merits, Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J. (Order Date 15.4.2025) held it a fit case for bail and allowed the application, directing release on a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount subject to five conduct conditions, breach of any being a ground for cancellation; the observations were expressly confined to the bail determination and not to the merits.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:54454

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11113 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sanny Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Babu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Ram Babu Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record of the case.

¶8

The present bail application under 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of applicant Sanny with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 322 of 2024, under Section 3(1) Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Thathiya, District Kannauj, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. In gang-chart annexed as Annexure No. 2, three criminal cases has been mentioned in all of which the applicant is on bail.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicant is not a member or leader or organizer of a gang and he has not abetted or assisted in the activities of a gang as enumerated in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act. Applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid case. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 15.09.2024, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the

¶12

applicant, but has not pointed out any other case against the applicant except the cases shown by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let applicant, Sanny be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶20

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

¶21

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶22

Order Date :- 15.4.2025 Deepak/

¶23

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanny v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanny v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashank Mehta Alias Vikki vs State of U.P.

Rahul Kumar vs State of U.P.

Nadeem Alias Govinda vs State of U.P.

Samir vs State of U.P.

Shyam Sharma vs State of U.P.

Jitesh Jha vs State of U.P.