Allowed

Lalau Pal @ Mithlesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2022BAIL/8716/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant charged under the U.P. Gangsters Act. The High Court found reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was not guilty and that he would not commit an offence or tamper with evidence while on bail, especially since a co-accused had already been released.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not influencing witnesses, cooperating in trial, and appearing at scheduled proceedings.

Lalau Pal @ Mithlesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8716 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Lalau Pal @ Mithlesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deena Nath 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 S.T. No. 60 of 2021, Case Crime No. 133 of 2021 under Sections 2/3 (1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Karaili, District-Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in this case, the police authority are harassing one pretext or other for the reasons best know to concerned police. In this case as per the gang chart, there is one case shown against the applicant and in that case, the applicant is on bail. Co-accused Sandeep Pal has already been granted bail vide order dated 16.02.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1696 of 2022.

¶8

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. 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. Prayer is to allow the application for bail.

¶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 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.

¶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 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this matter since 28.01.2021 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record as well as totality of facts and circumstances as also the co-accused has already been released on bail and as also after taking note of Section 19(4)(b) of the Gangsters Act in light of the facts of the case, 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.

¶17

Let applicant- Lalau Pal @ Mithlesh Kumar be released on

¶18

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:-

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

This order shall not influence the trial Court for proceeding with the trial.

¶23

The application stands disposed of .

¶24

Order Date :- 27.4.2022 Jaswant

¶25

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.04.29 09:12:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lalau Pal @ Mithlesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalau Pal @ Mithlesh Kumar 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

Mujeeb Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Vimal Kumar @ Satyendra Agrahari Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Vs State of U.P.

Moh. Jeelani Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Sahani Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others