Allowed

Anil Bhati @ Sonu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2022BAIL/15696/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to Anil Bhati accused under U.P. Gangster Act. Court held applicant entitled to release despite pending antecedents, noting State failed show effort for cancellation of previous bail and applicant is not guilty.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to specified conditions regarding witness influence and court attendance.

Anil Bhati @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15696 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Bhati @ Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajatshatru Pandey,Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi,Navnath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 336 of 2019, under Sections 2(b)(i), 2(b)(iii), 2(b)(iv), 2(b)(viii), 2(b)(xi), 2(b) (xii) & 3 (i) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station - NOIDA , District - Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

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 10 cases have been shown in normal criminal chart against the applicant and in all the cases he was granted bail. The Gang chart has not been prepared yet however proceedings have been initiated on that basis; it is further submitted that in the entire criminal antecedent the applicant was not named in the FIR and at the later stage his name has been falsely implicated. The applicant has duly explained his criminal history of 17 cases registered against him in para 21 of the rejoinder affidavit.

¶8

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.

¶9

He also stated that the provisions of the Act could not be used

¶10

as a weapon to wreak vengeance or harass or intimidate citizens or to settle scores on political or other fronts.

¶11

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.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 24.8.2020 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. does not argue any further and only opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

¶15

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record as well as totality of fact and circumstances 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. Further the record reveals that neither any effort nor any documentary evidence has been brought on record to show that any effort was taken on behalf of the State for cancellation of bail granted to the applicant in any of the previous criminal cases in which the applicant was released on bail. 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.

¶16

Let applicant- Anil Bhati @ Sonu 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:-

¶17

(1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 20.9.2022

¶22

samz

¶23

(Piyush Agrawal, J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by SYED AKHTARMOHAMMAD MEQDAD Date: 2022.09.23 15:29:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Bhati @ Sonu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Bhati @ Sonu 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

Kamlesh Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sonu @ Chamanni and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Kasir Vs State of U.P.

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bilal Vs State of U.P.