Aditya vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

Aditya vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Aditya released on bail in Case Crime No. 383 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) no inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure, and no tampering with evidence; (ii) no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; (iii) personal presence before the trial court at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; (iv) undertaking not to seek adjournment on evidence dates when witnesses are present; (v) presence on each fixed date personally or through counsel; breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Aditya, facing Case Crime No. 383 of 2024 under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act at Police Station Ecotech-3, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, should be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. during pendency of trial, judged against the totality of facts, nature and evidence on record and the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act. +1 more

Court's answer

On consideration of the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from the record, and taking into account Section 19(4) of the Gangsters Act, the judge found the case fit for bail without expressing any opinion on the merits.

Ratio / Principle

The bail application was allowed and the applicant Aditya was directed to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 383 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the enumerated conditions.

Key takeaways

Anything said in the order is limited to the purpose of determining the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits; the trial court is absolutely free to arrive at independent conclusions on the evidence led.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. — Ashutosh Srivastava, J. (Allahabad High Court, Court No. 68, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:30120, Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 586 of 2025, decided 3.3.2025): Aditya, accused in Case Crime No. 383 of 2024 under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Ecotech-3, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, ordered released on a personal bond with two reliable sureties of the like amount. The gang-chart (Annexure No. 2) showed six criminal cases, in each of which the applicant had already been enlarged on bail; the learned A.G.A. did not oppose the prayer and pointed to no further case. Weighing the totality of facts, nature and evidence on record and the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act, the court found the case fit for bail while expressly refraining from any opinion on the merits. Standard protective conditions were imposed — no inducement, threat, promise or tampering; no intimidation of prosecution witnesses; personal presence at case-opening, charge-framing and Section 313 Cr.P.C. recording; an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; attendance otherwise personally or through counsel — breach of any condition being a ground for cancellation. The trial court was left wholly free to arrive at its own conclusions.