This bail application under the U.P. Gangster Act was allowed. The court observed that the co-accused was already on bail and directions were given for the computerized copy of the order.
Applicant released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties with standard bail conditions.
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. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13619 of 2022 Applicant :- Pappu @ Sameer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar Solanki Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 544 of 2018, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Civil Line, District Budaun with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that two cases have been shown in the gang chart against the applicant and in both the cases, applicant is on bail.
In Case Crime No. 193 of 2017, under Section 302 IPC, PSCivil Lines, District-Budaun, the applicant was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49871 of 2018. It is stated that while granting the bail in this case crime number, this Court considered the criminal history of the applicant, as appears from the copy of the bail order annexed as Annexure No.2 to the bail application. The Case Crime No. 007 of 2017, under Section 174A IPC, PS-Civil Lines, District-Budaun is not covered under the Gangster Act.
He submitted that in the present case the applicant was taken into custody by way of B Warrant and as per the same, the applicant is in jail since 20.01.2022, however, the applicant, in fact, is in jail since 08.03.2018 and this date has been mentioned in the bail order dated 17.01.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.49871 of 2018. It is stated that there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. Also stated that co-accused Tanvir Alias Munabbar has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42556 of 2021 and the copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the bail application.
He further stated that in F.I.R., in issue, the allegations with regard to disturbing the public order as also regarding gaining undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage of like nature against the applicant are vague. Further, stated that in absence of allegation concerning an act or omission on the part of an accused, covered by the definition of term "gang" and "gangster" as provided under Section 2 of the Act, no FIR is maintainable. In the instant case, the FIR is based upon the pending criminal case(s) and not upon any new allegation(s) or discovery of fact(s) having serious reflection on the society, for which purpose the Act was enacted.
He also stated that the provisions of the Act could not be used as a weapon to wreak vengeance or harass or intimidate citizens or to settle scores on political or other fronts.
He stated that in this case, it appears that the District Administration in order to show good work or to win laurels or seek appreciation from the higher authorities of Government or ruling party has invoked the provisions of the Act, which is unjustified.
He also stated that considering the facts of the case, as stated above, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence under the Gangsters Act and that he would not commit the offence while on bail. He also submitted that the applicant while on bail would not commit any crime/offence nor would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 20.01.2022 and there is no apprehension that, if the facility of bail is granted to the applicant, he may flee from the course of law or he will not appear before the Court below, as also the evidence/material available on record is not strong enough to raise a presumption that the applicant is guilty of the offences mentioned in the gang chart.
In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but has fairly conceded that in the cases mentioned in the gang chart, applicant is on bail. He also could not dispute that coaccused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for
parties, material available on record as well as totality of fact and circumstances as also the fact that co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court as also after taking note of Section 19(4)(b) of the Gangsters Act in light of the facts of the case and submission of counsel for the applicant to the effect that while on bail in this case, the applicant would not commit any crime/offence nor would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant- Pappu @ Sameer be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.
(2) Applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.
(3) Applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
(4) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(5) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(6) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 9.5.2022 Vinay/-
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR Date: 2022.05.09 13:50:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under the U.P. Gangster Act, 1986 considering his co-accused has already been released.
Whether the FIR is maintainable under the Gangster Act given the vague allegations regarding gang definition.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Pappu @ Sameer
Saurabh Lavania
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
