Allowed¶13

Nadeem Alias Govinda v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2025BAIL/9475/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nadeem Alias Govinda (Nadeem @ Govinda) bail granted; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 9475 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Justice Ashutosh Srivastava; order dated 11.4.2025; bail under 483 B.N.S.S.; Section 2/3 and Section 19(4) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; clause (b) Section 2; Case Crime No. 1039 of 2024; P.S.-Khurja Nagar; District Bulandshahar; gang-chart Annexure No. 2; four cases on bail; custody since 21.01.2025; personal bond and two sureties; bail conditions; Section 19(4) consideration.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Nadeem @ Govinda in Case Crime No. 1039 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to the conditions stated in the order. ¶13

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Nadeem @ Govinda in Case Crime No. 1039 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to the conditions stated in the order.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Nadeem Alias Govinda should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1039 of 2024, under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Court's answer

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from the record, and taking into consideration Section 19(4) of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court found it a fit case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Applicant Nadeem @ Govinda to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1039 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions: no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; personal presence at opening of case, framing of charge and recording of statement; undertaking not to seek adjournments on evidence dates when witnesses are present; presence on each date fixed personally or through counsel; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶14

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 remains absolutely free to arrive at independent conclusions on the evidence led.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9475 of 2025, decided 11.4.2025. Bail application under 483 B.N.S.S. by Nadeem Alias Govinda (@ Govinda) in Case Crime No. 1039 of 2024, Police Station-Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahar, under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, allowed. Gang-chart (Annexure No. 2) disclosed four criminal cases in which the applicant was already on bail; the learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but pointed to no additional case. Considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence on record, and Section 19(4) of the Act, without expressing any opinion on merits, the court found it a fit case for bail: release on personal bond with two reliable sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence/witnesses and requiring presence at key trial stages and an undertaking against adjournments on evidence dates; breach to constitute ground for cancellation. Applicant in custody since 21.01.2025; trial not expected to conclude early owing to heavy pendency.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53377

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9475 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Nadeem Alias Govinda Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Gaurav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.K.Rai, learned A.G.A.-Ist, and perused the record of the case.

¶8

The present bail application under 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of applicant Nadeem Alias Govinda with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1039 of 2024, under Section 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station-Khurja Nagar, DistrictBulandshahar, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. In gang-chart annexed as Annexure No. 2, four criminal case has been mentioned in which the applicant is on bail. Criminal history of other cases has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of bail application. Criminal history of other cases has been explained in the supplementary affidavit.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicant is not a member or leader or organizer of a gang and he has not abetted or assisted in the activities of a gang as enumerated in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act. Applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid case. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 21.01.2025, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the

¶12

applicant, but has not pointed out any other case against the applicant except the cases shown by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let applicant, Nadeem @ Govinda be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶22

Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Deepak/

¶23

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nadeem Alias Govinda v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem Alias Govinda v. State of U.P.

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

Raj Kumar Agarwal vs State of U.P.

Rajat Kumar Tripathi Alias Shani Tripathi vs State of U.P.

Umesh Paswan vs State of U.P.

Surendra vs State of U.P.

Shashank Mehta Alias Vikki vs State of U.P.

Rahul Kumar vs State of U.P.