Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16581

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2433 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Anil Kumar

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

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

¶8

1A. Supplementary affidavit is taken on record.

¶9

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.21 of 2025, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Baghauli, District Hardoi.

¶10

It is submitted that as per the gang chart, applicant is shown involved only in one case being Case Crime no.152 of 2024 under 3/5/25 Arms Act in which he has already been enlarged on bail by court below. It is submitted that apart from aforesaid case, the applicant has been shown as involved in one more case being case crime no.420 of 2019, also under similar provisions in which too he has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 24.10.2019 passed by court below.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the aforesaid factual situation.

¶12

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

¶13

paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶14

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

¶15

"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."

¶16

In view of aforesaid submission and fact that the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in the single case shown against him in the gang chart as also in other case(s) as indicated herein above, conditions indicated in Section 19(4) U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 stand complied with at this stage, therefore the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let applicant Anil Kumar 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:-

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial

¶22

and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(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 be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 24.3.2025 kvg/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. 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

Amarjeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Yeshkaran Prasad Rathour and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Lko. and 2 Others

Ashok Yadav Alias Pradhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Suraj Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lucknow

Mujahid vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Shubham Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others