Mukeem vs. State Of U.P.
Held
The Court allowed the bail application. It acknowledged that the applicant had been enlarged on bail previously but failed to appear due to personal difficulties, and has since been in custody from September 13, 2022. The Court noted the applicant's undertaking to cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found the applicant entitled to be released on bail. The applicant was directed to furnish personal bonds and two fresh reliable sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Specific conditions were imposed, including attending hearings, not committing similar offences, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Facts
This case involves a bail application filed by Mukeem (the applicant) in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 23 of 2009, registered under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, at Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh. The applicant had previously been enlarged on bail but failed to appear before the trial court due to personal difficulties. He submitted an undertaking to cooperate with the trial. The applicant has been in custody since September 13, 2022. The State of U.P. (opposite party) opposed the bail prayer.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant, who was previously enlarged on bail but subsequently absconded due to personal difficulties, is entitled to be released on bail again, considering his undertaking to cooperate with the trial and his period of custody. Contentions: Petitioner (Mukeem): Argued that he was enlarged on bail and his subsequent non-appearance was due to personal difficulties. He undertook to cooperate with the trial and highlighted his period of custody since September 13, 2022. Revenue (State of U.P.): Vehemently opposed the bail prayer.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148118 Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26310 of 2023 Applicant :- Mukeem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- M.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
It is argued that the applicant was enlarged on bail. Subsequently, he could not appeared before the trial court on account of personal difficulty. He undertakes that he shall co- operate with the trial.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.
Considering the fact that the applicant is absconder and has undertaken to co-operate with the trial, the applicant is in custody since 13.09.2022 and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Mukeem be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.23 of 2009, GST No.204 of 2010, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh on his furnishing persona
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.