Allowed

Anoop Kumar Savita @ Anoop Srivastava v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2023BAIL/17813/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of Anoop Kumar Savita, who was on bail in other cases. It held that without material defining him as a gangster under U.P. Act 7 of 1986, the provisions could not be invoked, and he was granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to six conditions.

Anoop Kumar Savita @ Anoop Srivastava Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17813 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Anoop Kumar Savita @ Anoop Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh Sengar,Vijay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there are two cases shown in the gang chart against applicant, in which cases he is already on bail, the bail orders are annexed as Annexure nos. 3 and 4 to the affidavit. It is also submitted that other criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 13 of the affidavit and the bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No. 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant neither the gang leader or organizer or member of the gang and the provision of Gangster Act may not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. In the first information report, the allegations are vague in nature and no specific instance to the effect that the applicant is member or leader or organizer of a Gang has been disclosed and as such the factual foundation under the Gangster Act is not available.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the factual matrix of the case.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the provision of Gangster Act has been invoked against the applicant on the basis of two criminal cases. However, applicant has been released on bail in the aforesaid cases. Learned A.G.A. has not produced any material to demonstrate that the applicant comes within the definition of "Gangster" and "Gang" under U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Mere pendency of criminal case may not ipso facto invoke provisions of

¶10

U.P. Act No.7 of 1986. Criminal history of the applicant has been adequately explained.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Anoop Kumar Savita @ Anoop Srivastava involved in Case Crime No. 105 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/ or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶16

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

5 . The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.4.2023 VMA

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anoop Kumar Savita @ Anoop Srivastava v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Kumar Savita @ Anoop Srivastava 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

Munnoo Vs State of U.P.

Kadir Vs State of U.P.

Sohan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rihan Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Rahees Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others