Mohd. Ikram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23561

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2203 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohd. Ikram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 408 of 2024 , under Section 2/3 U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S.- Raniganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

As per gang chart, applicant is shown involved in single casesbearing cases crime Nos. 360 of 2022 in which he has already been enlarged on bail by Sessions Court in Bail Application No.2017 of 2023.

¶9

It is submitted that apart from the aforesaid case, the applicant is shown involved in 5 other cases which have been explained in the affidavit filed in support of bail application.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the said facts.

¶11

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶12

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment

¶13

begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶14

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicant has already been enlarged on bail in both cases shown in gang chart, therefore conditions indicated in Section 19(4) of U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 stands complied with at the stage, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let applicant Mohd. Ikram involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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 269 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

¶20

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) is issued and the applicant fails 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 209 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

¶21

(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 351 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). If in the opinion

¶22

of the trial court, absence of the applicant 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 him in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Renu/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Ikram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ikram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Faiyaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Raju Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Anuj Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ranjeet Pandey vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat

Kishu Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Another

Yawar Ali Khan Nanhan Zariwala Mohammed Ali Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another