Allowed

Bablu Saini v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2025BAIL/3601/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under the U.P. Gangster Act for an accused in jail since July 2023 who had already secured bail in all six gang-chart cases. Court found Section 19(4) conditions complied with, relying on Sanjay Chandra on bail as norm, and released him on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Case Crime No. 306 of 2023 on personal bond and two sureties, subject to trial-attendance and conduct conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24336

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3601 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Bablu Saini Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- D.P. Dutt Tiwari,Deepika Gupta,Manas Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State-opposite party and perused on record.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 13.07.2023 in Case Crime No.306 of 2023, under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Chinhat, DistrictLucknow.

¶8

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 Nos.3 to 8 to the bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant does not have any other previous criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant has not misused the liberty of bail so granted to him and detention of the present applicant under Gangster Act is unwarranted. He has further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Further, the applicant undertakes that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶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 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 and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let applicant- Bablu Saini be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶21

Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bablu Saini v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu Saini 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jagdambika Prasad Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sushil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Yunva Kalyan Evam Prantiye Rakshak Dal Lko. and 3 Others

Raj Kamal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ramkumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Priti Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shajid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another