Monu vs. State Of U.P.
Held
The Court allowed the bail application. The reasoning was based on the arguments presented by the applicant's counsel, which the State's counsel could not satisfactorily refute. These arguments included the applicant's alleged false implication, his bail in all cases in the gang chart, denial of gang membership, lack of criminal history apart from the cited cases, and his status as a non-flight risk who would cooperate with proceedings. The Court explicitly stated that no observations were being made on the merits of the case. The applicant, Monu, was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court below, with conditions to not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses and to appear before the trial court unless exempted.
Facts
The applicant, Monu, sought enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 174 of 2019 (GST No. 04/2020), registered under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act at Police Station-Tappal, District-Aligarh. The applicant has been in jail since April 29, 2019. His bail application was previously rejected by the learned trial court on February 9, 2023. The prosecution did not satisfactorily refute the arguments presented by the applicant's counsel.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the arguments presented. Arguments for the applicant: The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated to enhance police credentials, has been enlarged on bail in all four cases listed in the gang chart, is not a member of any criminal gang, has no criminal history beyond the mentioned cases, and is not a flight risk, having cooperated with the investigation and promising to cooperate with court proceedings. The applicant also asserted no possibility of influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or reoffending. Arguments for the State: The State's counsel, the learned AGA, did not satisfactorily refute the applicant's arguments from the record.
Sections Cited
Section 439
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9593 of 2023 Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.174 of 2019 (GST No. 04/2020) at Police Station-Tappal, District- Aligarh under Sections 2/3 of Gangsters Act. The applicant is in jail since 29.04.2019. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 09.02.2023. The following arguments made by Shri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Saksham Srivastava, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Markandey Singh, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail: (1). The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case only to burnish the credentials of the police investigators. (2). The applicant has been enlarged on bail in all the four criminal cases depicted in the gang chart. (3). He is not a member of any criminal gang.
(4).The applicant does not have
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.