Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 659 (ALL)

Maksood Ahmad v. State of U. P.

2024-03-01

ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI

body2024
JUDGMENT : ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This bail application has been filed by the accused-applicant Maksood Ahmad who is involved in Case Crime No. 85 of 2020 under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station Raniganj District Pratapgarh. 3. There is only one case shown against the accused-applicant in the gang-chart wherein he is already on bail. It is submitted that the accused applicant has not indulged into any anti social activity after the date of release nor was he apprehended in the commission of any offence alongwith the alleged gang members mentioned in the gang chart. Co-accused persons namely Israt, Jauwad and Rohit Yadav @ Chhotu have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 4.9.2020, 12.1.2021 and 30.11.2021 passed in Bail Nos. 6212 of 2020, 6903 of 2020 and 12795 of 2021 respectively. 4. It is also submitted that the applicant has not misused the liberty of bail granted to him and the imposition of Gangster Act is without any plausible justification. 5. The accused applicant has assured that he shall co-operate with the proceedings and shall not indulge into any nefarious or anti-social activity henceforth. 6. The accused applicant is in jail since 5.1.2024. 7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, a case for bail is made out. 9. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions: (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. 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.