Allowed¶12

Sushil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2025BAIL/1775/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed; U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Sections 2/3; Section 19(4) Gangsters Act; Section 483 BNSS 2023; Section 351 BNSS; Clause (b) Section 2 Gangsters Act; gang-chart; Case Crime No. 231 of 2024; P.S. Jansath; District Muzaffar Nagar; applicant Sushil; custody since 06.12.2024; trial pending; personal bond and two sureties; conditions of bail; cancellation of bail on breach; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:46670; Allahabad High Court; order date 3.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Sushil in Case Crime No. 231 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to enumerated conditions; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail. ¶12

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Sushil, arraigned in Case Crime No. 231 of 2024 under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Jansath, District Muzaffar Nagar, should be released on bail during pendency of trial.

¶7

Court's answer

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

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions.

¶13

Key takeaways

Bail is subject to conditions including no inducement/tampering with witnesses or evidence, no pressurising prosecution witnesses, personal presence before the trial court on dates fixed for opening of case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, and presence on each date personally or through counsel; breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶19
Anything said in the order is limited to the purpose of determining the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits; the trial court remains absolutely free to arrive at independent conclusions on the evidence led.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.), by order dated 3.4.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1775 of 2025, allowed bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to applicant Sushil in Case Crime No. 231 of 2024 under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Jansath, District Muzaffar Nagar, trial pending. The gang-chart showed one criminal case in which the applicant is already on bail, and the learned AGA, while opposing bail, pointed out no other case. The applicant, in custody since 06.12.2024, undertook not to misuse liberty. Considering the totality of facts and the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the court found it a fit case for bail, releasing the applicant on a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount with conditions (no inducement or tampering with witnesses/evidence, no intimidation of prosecution witnesses, presence at framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., undertaking against adjournments when witnesses are present, and presence on each date personally or through counsel), breach being a ground for cancellation. The order was expressly limited to the bail determination, leaving the trial court free to arrive at independent conclusions.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46670

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1775 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sushil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Shyam Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri R.K. Gupta, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant - Sushil with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 231 of 2024, under Section 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station- Jansath, District- Muzaffar Nagar during pendency of the trial.

¶8

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, one criminal case has been shown and in that case, the applicant is on bail.

¶9

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 06.12.2024 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.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but has not pointed out any other case against the

¶11

applicant except the cases shown by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

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 .

¶13

Let applicant, Sushil 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-

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

(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 under Section 351 B.N.S.S.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.4.2025 Anjali

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sushil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil 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

Irfan vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Twari vs State of U.P.

Mithun vs State of U.P.

Furkan vs State of U.P.

Sonu Alias Sukhveer vs State of U.P.

Shivam vs State of U.P.