Allowed

Bhudole and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 May 2023BAIL/19001/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application was filed by Bhudole and Ram Surat challenging their detention under the U.P. Gangster Act. The Allahabad High Court analyzed the sufficiency of allegations regarding gang leadership and the applicability of the Gangster Act, ultimately allowing the bail application based on the facts and circumstances presented.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants Bhudole and Ram Surat on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with certain conditions.

Bhudole and Another Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100368

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19001 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Bhudole And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is only one case shown in the gang chart against each of the applicants, in which case they are already on bail, the bail order is annexed as Annexure no. 3 to the affidavit. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that applicants 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. Applicants are languishing in jail since 27.3.2023 and in case they are released on bail, they 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 applicants are member or leader or organizer of a Gang has been disclosed and as such the factual foundation under the Gangster Act is not available.

¶9

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

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the provision of Gangster Act has been invoked against the applicants on the basis of one criminal case. However, applicants have been released on bail in the aforesaid cases. Learned A.G.A. has not produced any material to demonstrate that the applicants come 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 U.P. Act No.7 of 1986. Criminal history of the applicants have

¶11

been adequately explained.

¶12

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

¶13

Let the applicants Bhudole and Ram Surat involved in Case Crime No. 376 of 2022, under Sections 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Chhawani, District Basti 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

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

¶17

The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶18

5 . The applicants 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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 10.5.2023

¶22

D. Tamang

¶23

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhudole and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhudole and Another 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

Abdul Salam Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amreesh @ Ajay Bavariya Vs State of U.P.

Harish Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Tarun @ Bhoora Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Akhtar Vs State of U.P.