Application for bail under the U.P. Gangster Act was rejected. The court noted the applicant was a gang leader who committed four new offences after being released on bail in a previous Gangster Act case, violating the statutory intent under Section 19.
Bail application rejected; applicant not enlarged on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9228 of 2019
Applicant :- Sachin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Daya Shanker Pandey,Deepak Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Sachin with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 2453 of 2018, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
From perusal of the first information report it appears that on the basis of gang chart, attached with the present bail application, the offence under the Gangster Act has been registered against the accused-applicant on 02.11.2018. The first information report further shows that four criminal cases were found to be registered against the accused-applicant. The applicant is the gang leader of the gang and was involved in the illegal activity of obtaining financial and economical gain by causing threat to public order and peace. The first information report also shows that amongst the people, there is fear and terror of the present accused-appliant.
In the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A., the criminal history of 13 cases against the accused-applicant has been mentioned. For the said criminal history, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in all those 13 cases, the accusedapplicant was on bail and on the basis of alleged bail orders, he
had also been released on bail under the Gangster Act. It has been submitted that the applicant is involved in the business of plants and flower pots. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tempering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. the applicant has been in jail since 18.01.2019, hence, he is entitled to bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and has submitted that there is a huge criminal history of the accused-applicant. The accused-applicant is gang leader and the gang has been formed to obtain illegal gains in terms of money and property.
From perusal of the bail orders filed on behalf of the applicant, it appears that in most of the cases, it has been alleged that the accused-applicant or the members of his gang have either snatched away some golden chain, mobile or on the point of deadly weapon, similar kind of loot has been committed. The bail orders further show that the activity of the said gang was around Ghaziabad and Gautam Budh Nagar. The record shows that that prior to the present case under the Gangster Act, another offence under the Gangster Act was registered against the accused-applicant, in which the accused-applicant was released on bail by order of this Court on 16.04.2018.
The four cases have been mentioned in the gang chart. It appears that the alleged four cases have been committed after the accused applicant has been released on bail under the Gangster Act on 16.04.2018. It goes to show that the gang activity did not stop after the accused-applicant was released on bail in the first case under the Gangster Act.
The submission, that in all four cases mentioned in the gang
chart, the accused-applicant has already been released on bail, is not sufficient for releasing the person against whom the offence under the Gangster Act has been registered second time.
Section 19 of the Gangster Act provides the yardstick for releasing the accused on bail against whom the offence under the Gangster Act has been registered. It requires the satisfaction of the court that there is reason to believe that such accused on being released on bail will not again commit the offence of similar nature. On being released on bail under the Gangster Act, the present accused applicant has been reportedly committed four offences of the like nature which finds mention in the gang chart. Therefore, the learned A.G.A. has argued that keeping in view the rigorous provision of the U.P. Gangster Act and on factual matrix also where the accused-applicant being the leader of the gang has been involved in the commission of the offence of same nature on being released on bail, he is not entitled for bail.
Considering the submission of both the parties, at this stage, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail and the bail application is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 6.1.2020 sailesh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being released on bail previously in a similar case under the Gangster Act and committing fresh offences while on bail.
Whether the satisfaction required under Section 19 of the U.P. Gangster Act regarding the likelihood of committing similar offences in the future is met in the instant case.
Whether criminal history of the applicant and post-bail offences bar the grant of bail under the Gangster Act.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sachin
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
