Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Sandeep Alias Montu vs State Of U.P.

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|15 April, 2021

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The case is called out.
Learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijay Kumar, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State are connected through Video Conferencing and, as such, they are in attendance and hearing of the Court.
The present bail application is moved on behalf of accused-applicant- Sandeep @ Montu, who is involved in Case Crime No.366 of 2020, under Sections 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District- Hardoi.
The occasion of present bail application has arisen on the rejection of his bail application of accused-applicant by the learned Special Judge, Gangster Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5 vide order dated 23.02.2021.
Perused the gang chart wherein the accused-applicant, Sandeep @ Montu is shown at Serial No.3 alongwith other members of gang i.e. Rohit Kumar @ Sunny and Mahendra Kumar. It appears that there is only one case registered against the accused-applicant i.e. Case Crime No.308/2020, under Sections 379/411 of I.P.C., registered in Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District- Hardoi.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has no any type of gang and nor involved in any criminal activities. He further submits that the accused-applicant is languishing in jail since 25.11.2020. Learned counsel further submitted that in the aforementioned case, the applicant is enlarged on bail by the competent court (bail order is annexed as Annexure No.3).
Learned counsel further submitted that the present accused-applicant is a local resident, not in a position to flee away from the process of the Court, is ready and willing to face the trial and will not use the liberty of bail, if released on bail.
Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by learned counsel for the accused-applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicant (Sandeep @ Montu) involved in Case Crime No.366 of 2020, under Sections 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District- Hardoi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional 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.
Order Date :- 15.4.2021 Gaurav/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sandeep Alias Montu vs State Of U.P.

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
15 April, 2021
Judges
  • Vikas Kunvar Srivastav