Allowed

Sheru @ Arman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2025BAIL/3141/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First bail application under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act for Case Crime No.538 of 2022. The applicant was already on bail in all cases cited in the gang chart. Relying on Sanjay Chandra v CBI, the court found Section 19(4) conditions complied with and allowed the bail application.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to specified conditions.

Sheru @ Arman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21506

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3141 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sheru @ Arman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Kumar Maurya,Vikas Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit is taken on record.

¶8

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.538 of 2022, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Masauli, District Barabanki.

¶9

It has been submitted that in the gang chart applicant has been shown involved in Case Crime No.54 of 2022 in which he has already been granted bail in Bail Application no.7389 of 2023.

¶10

It is submitted that apart from aforesaid case, applicant is shown involved in seven more cases in which he has already been enlarged on bail.

¶11

The case crime numbers are as follows:-

¶12

In Case Crime No.147 of 2021 applicant has been enlarged on bail by court below vide Bail Application no.1084 of 2022;

¶13

In Case Crime No.03 of 2022 applicant has been enlarged on bail by court below vide Bail Application no.1154 of 2022;

¶14

In Case Crime No.375 of 2021 applicant has been enlarged on bail by court below vide Bail Application no.2019 of 2022;

¶15

In Case Crime No.142 of 2022 applicant has been enlarged on bail by ACJM, Barabanki;

¶16

In Case Crime No.233 of 2021 applicant has been enlarged on bail by court below vide Bail Application no.1083 of 2022

¶17

In Case Crime No.174 of 2022 applicant has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Bail Application no.6841 of 2023; and

¶18

In Case Crime No.62 of 2022 applicant has been enlarged on bail by court below vide Bail Application no.12993 of 2024;

¶19

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact that applicant is

¶20

enlarged on bail in all the cases indicated against him.

¶21

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 :-

¶22

"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."

¶23

"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."

¶24

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 all the cases filed against him as averred in the affidavit/supplementary affidavit filed in support of the application and therefore 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.

¶25

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶26

Let applicant Sheru @ Arman involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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:-

¶27

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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.

¶28

(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/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her 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/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

(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

¶31

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/her in accordance with law.

¶32

Order Date :- 17.4.2025 kvg/-

¶33

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

Sheru @ Arman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheru @ Arman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Arpit Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sharukh Mansuri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Widow Usha Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home and Another

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

Rakesh Pathak Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.