Ayodhya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14098

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7866 of 2024

Applicant :- Ayodhya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 193 of 2024, under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986(hereinafter, referred to as 'Act 1986'), Police Station-Kamlapur, District -Sitapur.

¶8

it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He submits that three cases have been shown in the gang chart against the applicant, in which he has been enlarged on bail. Except apart these three cases, there are eight other case criminal history of the applicant,which has been explained.

¶9

It is further submitted that the allegations for disturbing the public order and gaining undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage against the applicant, are vague and concocted. Further submitted that narration of the first information report, transpires that the allegations are based upon pending criminal case(s) and not upon the newly allegation(s) or discovery of fact(s) having serious impact on the society at large, for the reasons, the Act was promulgated 1986. He

¶10

added that the police is using the provisions of the Act, 1986, as a weapon to harass and intimidate the applicant and further, it also appears that the district administration, in order to show the good work or to seek appreciation from the higher authorities, has invoked the provisions of the Act, which is uncalled for and unjustified.

¶11

Adding his arguments, he submits that the applicant is not involved in any anti social activities and he is neither Member nor the Leader of any gang.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22-06-2024 and he is not guilty of the offence under the Act 1986 and he undertakes that he would not commit any offence while on bail and would never try to tamper the evidences or would influence the witnesses and would never jump the conditions of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Therefore, submission is that the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid, but, he has fairly conceded that in the case (s) mentioned in the gang chart (cases explained other than the gang chart), the applicant(s), is on bail.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22-06-2024 and criminal history has been explained and he has undertaken that he would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of

¶16

India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶17

Let the applicant- Ayodhya involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶18

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶19

(2) 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. He 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;

¶20

(3) 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.; and

¶21

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶23

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 AKS

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ayodhya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayodhya 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hausila Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Rakesh Kumar Surana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and Another

Piyush Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. and Another

Farmaan Vs Union of India Thru. Director of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Office Lko.

Pawan Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Mohd. Miya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.