Allahabad High Court
Rahul vs State Of U.P. on 8 May, 2020
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4893 of 2020 Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice The contention of the applicant is that the applicant is shown to be involved in four cases being Case Crime no.290 of 2019, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Sambhal, District Sambhal, Case Crime no.311 of 2019, under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Sambhal, District Sambhal, Case Crime no.312 of 2019, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Sambhal, District Sambhal, and Case Crime no.346 of 2019, under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Sambhal, District Sambhal. It is urged by the applicant that in each of the said cases, he is on bail. He has invited the attention of the Court to the various bail orders passed in his case by the learned Sessions Judge and this Court, that are subject matter of the present prosecution. Further attention of the Court is drawn to the gang chart, which on its face records a stereotyped mechanical paraphrasing of the statutory ingredients required to attract the provisions of the U.P. Gangsters Act. The gang chart where the Authorities have recorded their satisfaction to sanction launching of the present prosecution, does not show any particular fact, specific to the case of the applicant with reference to four crimes, that may project the applicant to be a gangster, or the leader or member of a gang.
Having considered all the relevant facts, I deem it appropriate to accept this application. Accordingly, the same is allowed.
Let the applicant Rahul involved in Case Crime No.446 of 2019, under Section 3(1) of Gangster Act, P.S. Kotwali Sambhal, District Sambhal be released on bail on his furnishing two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each and a personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(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.
(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 proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(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.
(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.
(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 8.5.2020 Bhaskar (Govind Mathur, C.J.)