Satyam Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2022 Supreme(UK) 407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Satyam Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2595 of 2022
Decided On : 01-12-2022

Important Points

The court considered the similar bail granted to co-accused and the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, in granting bail to the applicant.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail and Pre-Trial Release

Act Referred

UTTAR PRADESH GANGSTERS AND ANTI SOCIAL ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT : S.2, S.3

Headnote

Bail - Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - The court granted bail to the applicant under the Act after considering the similar bail granted to co-accused and finding the case fit for bail.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought release on bail in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, where the co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the case fit for bail and granted the applicant's bail application.

Issues:

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the similar bail granted to co-accused and deemed the case fit for bail, leading to the decision to grant bail to the applicant.

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.

Advocates appeared:
Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, V.S. Rathore, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Satyam Kumar is in judicial custody in FIR No.44 of 2022, under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station ITI, 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 submitted that the co-accused having similar role have already been granted bail.

4. Learned State counsel admits this fact.

5 Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and 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.