Allowed¶12

Shakeel Ahmed v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2025BAIL/3225/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in U.P. Gangsters Act case; Section 3(1) UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Case Crime No. 01 of 2025; P.S. Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar; gang-chart with single case; applicant already on bail in that case; State did not oppose; Section 19(4) of the Act considered; custody since 01.01.2025; personal bond and two sureties; conditions incl. appearance for Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement; observations confined to bail, not merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Shakeel Ahmed to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the enumerated conditions. ¶12

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Shakeel Ahmed should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025 under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (P.S. Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar) during pendency of trial.

¶7

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 merits, the Court found it a fit case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions (including non-tampering with evidence/witnesses, presence before the trial court on dates fixed for opening of case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and no adjournment-seeking on evidence dates); breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Key takeaways

Anything said in the order is limited to the purpose of determination of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case; the trial court remains free to arrive at independent conclusions.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:35124; decided 10.3.2025) allowed a Section 439 Cr.P.C. bail application of Shakeel Ahmed, booked in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025 under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Dudhara, District Sant Kabir Nagar. The gang-chart showed a single case in which the applicant was already enlarged on bail; the State (learned A.G.A.) could not point out any other case and did not oppose bail; the applicant, in custody since 01.01.2025, had no other criminal history. Considering the totality of facts and Section 19(4) of the Act, and without expressing opinion on merits, bail was granted on a personal bond and two reliable sureties, with conditions regarding witness protection, presence before the trial court (including for framing of charge and Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement), no adjournments on evidence dates, and breach being a ground for cancellation. Observations were expressly confined to the bail determination.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35124

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3225 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Shakeel Ahmed Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akshansh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Akshansh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-Respondent and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 3(1) Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Dudhara, District Sant Kabir 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, in which the applicant has already been enlarged 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 01.01.2025, 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. could not oppose the prayer for bail of the applicant and also could not pointed out any other case against the applicant except the case shown in the gang-chart made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

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 .

¶12

Let the applicant, Shakeel Ahmed, 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-

¶13

(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.

¶14

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

¶15

(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 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 10.3.2025 pks

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shakeel Ahmed v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeel Ahmed 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anuj Alias Varun Vs State of U.P.

Lale Alias Salvesh Khan vs State of U.P.

Pammi vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar vs State of U.P.

Shehzaade @ Chedi vs State of U.P.

Rakesh vs State of U.P.