SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(UK) 38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Tasleem Alias Sabuni - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Bail Application No. 2355 of 2022
Decided On : 17-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate

Headnote:

Bail - Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - The court considered the nature of the offenses and other attending factors and concluded that the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought release on bail under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, after being in judicial custody for more than four years.

Finding of the Court:

The court, after considering the arguments and perusing the record, found that the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail based on the nature of the offenses and other attending factors.

Issues: The issue was whether the applicant should be released on bail under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, despite being in custody for more than four years.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the nature of the offenses and other attending factors, leading to the conclusion that the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail.

Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Tasleem alias Sabuni is in judicial custody in FIR No. 101 of 2018, under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham 'Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is argued that in all cases, based on which instant case has been planted, the applicant has already been enlarged on bail. The applicant is in custody for more than four years. There is no reason to detain him.

4. Learned State counsel would submit that the applicant is already on bail in all cases based on which instant case has been lodged.

5. Having considered nature of offences and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

6. The bail application is allowed.

7. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top