Allowed

Mohd. Khalid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2022BAIL/50496/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the court examined the invocation of the U.P. Gangsters Act against the applicant. Finding grounds that the Act was used arbitrarily and allegations were vague, the judge granted bail subject to personal bonds and two sureties, directing the applicant to avoid tampering with evidence and cooperate in the trial.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding witness influence, trial cooperation, and court attendance.

Mohd. Khalid Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50496 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Khalid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Shahnawaz Shah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,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. 218 of 2021, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District-Meerut with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant submitted that in the instant case provisions of Gangsters Act has been invoked in illegal and arbitrary manner and just to harass the applicant. In the gang chart, three cases have been mentioned and in all the cases, the applicant has already been enlarged on bail. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Annexure Nos. 3, 4 and 5. It is stated that crime of the applicant is not covered in the definition as provided under Section 1 of the Act and in facts and circumstances, he is not liable to be punished under Section 3 of the Act.

¶8

He, on the basis of supplementary affidavit filed today which is taken on record, submitted that in Case Crime No. 54 of 2015, P.S.-Sadar Bazar, District-Meerut, which has not been shown in the gang chart registered under Section 414 I.P.C., the applicant has already been acquitted in the year 2015 itself. So far as Case Crime No. 53 of 2015, P.S.-Sadar Bazar, District-Meerut is concerned, this case is also not shown in the gang chart, however, Police have wrongly mentioned this case against the applicant as in this case, the applicant is not involved.

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this matter since 04.10.2021 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but has fairly conceded that in the case mentioned in the gang chart, applicant is on bail.

¶17

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record as well as totality of facts and circumstances and 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

¶18

view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

Let applicant- Mohd. Khalid 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(4) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶24

(5) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶25

(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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Order Date :- 4.1.2022 Vinay/-

Mohd. Khalid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Khalid 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

Jitendra @ J.K. Vs State of U.P.

Raghvendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Billu Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Gupta Vs State of U.P Thru Secretary Home Govt. Up. Lknw.