Allowed

Mohd Akhtar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 May 2023BAIL/19007/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

[[Court]] allowed criminal bail application filed by Mohd Akhtar involving allegations under the U.P. Gangsters Act. The court held that mere pendency of a case does not invoke the Gangster Act without material showing definition fulfillment and granted bail on bonds.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each, subject to standard conditions including appearance before trial court and prohibition of tampering with evidence.

Mohd Akhtar Vs State of U.P. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100369

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19007 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd Akhtar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.Z.Khan 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 applicant, 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 applicant, in which case he is already on bail, the bail order is annexed as Annexure no.2 to the affidavit. 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 2.6.2021 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.

¶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 applicant on the basis of one criminal case. 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

¶11

U.P. Act No.7 of 1986. Criminal history of the applicant has 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 applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Mohd Akhtar involved in Case Crime No. 121 of 2021, under Sections 3(1) Prevention of U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur 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

(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(iii). 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.

¶17

(iv). 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.

¶18

(v) . 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.

¶19

The applicant 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 D. Tamang

¶22

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

Mohd Akhtar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Akhtar 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

Cases cited

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.

Bhudole and Another Vs State of U.P.