This High Court allowed an applicant's bail application in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Act, 1986. The court held the applicant entitled to bail based on counsel's submissions that he was a scapegoat and presented personal bond conditions.
Applicant released on bail via personal bond and two sureties under specified 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. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21550 of 2022
Applicant :- Abrar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 296 of 2021 at Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur under Section 3(1) Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant is in jail since 05.08.2021.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Gangsters Act), Rampur, on 28.02.2022.
Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant has been enlarged on bail in the solitary criminal case depicted in the gang chart. He is not a member of any criminal gang.
Explaining the criminal history of the applicant learned counsel for the applicant contends that being from economically weaker section of the society the applicant has become an easy scapegoat for the police authorities who have falsely implicated the applicant in the said cases to burnish their credentials. The applicant has never misused the liberty of bail granted to him in the said cases. The criminal cases do not
depict commission of any heinous crime by the applicant and have no bearing on this bail application. The applicant is not a flight risk and there is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
Shri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned brief holder for the State does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.
I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Abrar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 30.5.2022 Pravin
Digitally signed by PRAVIN VERMA Date: 2022.06.02 10:45:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 despite prior bail applications rejected in relate
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abrar
Ajay Bhanot
Pravin Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
