Allowed

Taj Mohammad v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2025BAIL/3256/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under the U.P. Gangsters Act where the gang chart showed involvement in only one case in which the applicant already had bail. Relying on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI that bail is the norm, the court held Section 19(4) conditions were prima facie complied with and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to four imposed conditions regarding trial attendance and non-adjournment.

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22049

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3256 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Taj Mohammad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santi,Rizwanul Haque Ansari 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. 70 of 2025 , under Section 2(b)(xvii)/3, U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S.- Pasgawan, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

As per gang chart, applicant is shown involved in single case crime No. 479 of 2024 under Sections 109(1) BNS and 3/5(ka)/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Section 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Pasgawan, District Lakhimpur Kheri in which he has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 255 of 2025.

¶9

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

¶10

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 :-

¶11

"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."

¶12

"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."

¶13

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available 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 filed in support of the application and therefore conditions indicated in Section 19(4) of U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 stand complied with at this stage, therefore the

¶14

applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶15

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let applicant Taj Mohammad 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:-

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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).

¶19

(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).

¶20

(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 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.4.2025 prabhat

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Taj Mohammad v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taj Mohammad v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

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

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

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

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

Saddam @ Mohd. Saddam Qureshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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