Allowed

Kamil v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC19 May 2025BAIL/3994/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by Kamil, who was charged under provisions of the IPC and the U.P. Gangster Act. The court observed that the applicant was not apprehended from the spot and surrendered a prior criminal history affidavit. Relying on the principle that bail is the norm, the court granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to standard bail conditions.

Kamil vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29322

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3994 of 2025 Applicant :- Kamil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.150 of 2003, under Section 401 IPC & Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention Act), registered at Police Station Fakharpur, District Bahraich.

¶7

As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 24.03.2003, when a police team acting upon information supplied is said to have apprehended two persons said to be in the process of formulating a plan or committing a theft.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him and that he has not been apprehended from spot but his name has been nominated only on account of alleged confessional statement of the person who were allegedly arrested from spot. It is submitted that initially FIR has been lodged under Section 401 IPC but subsequently Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention), Act of 1986 was imposed against the applicant with regard to the same incident and his bail application has been rejected by means of order dated 07.04.2025 with regard to both provisions simultaneously.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but does not dispute the said facts. It has admitted that no separate Gang-chart was prepared in the year 2003 and therefore the relevant section of Gangster Act 1986 was imposed against the applicant with regard to the

¶10

same incident.

¶11

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 :-

¶12

"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."

¶13

"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."

¶14

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that bail application of applicant filed under both provisions has been rejected by a single order dated 07.04.2025. It appears that no separate gang-chart was prepared at that time. As per submissions and upon perusal of material, it appears that arresting has taken place only on account of suspicion with regard to future committing of theft. Applicant does not appear to have been apprehend from the spot and has been nominated only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of persons who were apprehended from the spot. Previous criminal history of ten cases has been explained.

¶15

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has

¶16

been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant, Kamil 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:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her 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/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.

¶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 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Subodh/-

¶24

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

Kamil v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamil v. State of U.P. Thru. Its 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

Similar cases

Abhishek Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Naushad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Shivam Dubey @ Golu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sanjeev Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dilip Kumar Kashyap @ Pillur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Kalam Khan @ Mohd. Kalam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another