Sumit Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26804

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3299 of 2025

Applicant :- Sumit Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State and perused on record.

¶8

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 47 of 2025 under Sections 2b (1) & 3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Jamo, District Amethi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that against the present applicant, only six cases have been indicated in the gang chart (Annexure No.2) in which the applicant has been granted bail. The bail orders have been enclosed as Annexure No.3 to the bail application.

¶10

It is submitted that apart from the aforesaid cases, applicant is shown involved in nine other cases the details of which have been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit.

¶11

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

¶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 paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶13

"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

¶14

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

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 filed in support of 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.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant- Sumit Singh 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 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.

¶22

(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

¶23

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 :- 7.5.2025 Satish

¶25

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

Sumit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

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

Rajlal Kori Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bilkish Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Alok Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Sumit Joshi @ Sunny vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others vs Praveen Singh and Another