Allowed

Pramod Jatav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2022BAIL/43364/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to the applicant under the U.P. Gangster Act. The court observed that alleged gang connections existed in separate pending cases where the applicant remained on bail. Releasing the applicant on personal bond with two sureties was held appropriate without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties.

Pramod Jatav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43364 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pramod Jatav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 267/2022, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station - Sikandrau, District - Hathras, with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that one case has been shown in the gang chart against the applicant and in the said cases, applicant is on bail.

¶8

He further stated that in the 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.

¶9

He further stated that in absence of allegation concerning an act or omission on the part of an accused, covered by the definition of terms "gang" and "gangster" as provided under Section 2 of the Act, no FIR is maintainable. In the instant case, the F.I.R. 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.

¶10

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.

¶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 20.04.2022 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.

¶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. 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.

¶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 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.

¶16

Let applicant, namely, Pramod Jatav, be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime on 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 the 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

¶21

and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 27.9.2022 Amit Mishra

¶23

(Piyush Agrawal,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2022.09.28 09:07:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pramod Jatav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Jatav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundar Lal Vs State of U.P.

Hardev @ Sunder and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ahmad Hasan @ Chunni Khan and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shivani Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Artee Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shahid Husain @ Shahid Vs State of U.P.