Allowed

Pintu Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC29 May 2025BAIL/4792/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First bail application under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters Act where the applicant had already been enlarged on bail in the two cases forming the gang chart. The court held Section 19(4) conditions stood complied with and allowed bail on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

Pintu Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:32840

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4792 of 2025 Applicant :- Pintu Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Balak Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.24 of 2025, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Bevana, District Pratapgarh.

¶7

It is submitted that as per gang chart, applicant has been shown involved in two cases bearing Case Crime Nos.126 of 2024 and 127 of 2024 in which the applicant has already been enlarged on bail by this Court Bail Application Nos. 12907 of 2024 and 12873 of 2024 respectively.

¶8

It is submitted that apart from the aforesaid two cases, it is submitted that no other case is pending against the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 21.04.2025.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact that applicant has already been enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case in which his involvement has been indicated.

¶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

¶12

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

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.

¶15

8. Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let applicant- Pintu Verma 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

¶19

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

Order Date : - 29.5.2025 Subodh/-

¶23

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

Pintu Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Sectt. Lko

Ashok Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

Brahma Nand vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 3 Others

Shivam Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Rajitram @ Subhash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others