Allowed

Yogesh and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2019BAIL/17447/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to two accused persons under the UP Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, releasing them on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting witness tampering and future criminal activities.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each of like amount on specific conditions.

Yogesh and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17447 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Yogesh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicants is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Amit Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Seema Shukla, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case with some ulterior motive. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that according to gang chart, three cases have been registered against applicant No. 1 Yogesh and two cases have been registered against applicant No. 2 Ankit, in which the applicants have been enlarged on bail. It has also been submitted that there is nothing on record to show that applicants have gained any undue temporal pecuniary material or any other advantage for themselves or any other person by gangster and anti social activities acts. It is next submitted that there is no report of District Magistrate/Special Court on record regarding acquisition of any movable or immovable property by the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the provisions of the Act has been used against the applicants like a weapon to harass and intimidate the innocent applicants. It is next contended that there is no chance of the applicants of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are in jail since 20.03.2019 and they are not previous convict. In case they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants by contending that the applicants are members of gang and habitual of committing crime. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will indulge in similar anti-social activities and will misuse the liberty of bail by extending threat and intimidation to the prosecution witnesses.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicants Yogesh and Ankit, involved in case crime No. 106 of 2019, under section 2/3 of UP Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, police station Noorpur, district Bijnor, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions that:-

¶10

The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶11

The applicants shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court and cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶12

The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶13

However, in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for cancellation of bail of the applicants.

¶14

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.7.2019 Sazia

Yogesh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chahat Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Farman and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Rahees Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Masi Vs State of U.P.