Allowed

Hisamuddin and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2023BAIL/19612/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail for two applicants in a Gangsters Act case. The court noted vagueness in FIR allegations regarding 'gang' definitions and prior bail grants in related cases. Balancing these factors under Section 19(4)(b), the court ordered release on personal bond and two sureties without adjudicating the merits.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant nos. 1 and 2 on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each on specific conditions regarding evidence tampering and appearance.

Hisamuddin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175785

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19612 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Hisamuddin And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Nimesh Kumar Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.

¶8

Vide order dated 02.05.2023 passed by this Court, the applicant no. 3- Abutalib has been granted bail. Therefore, now the present bail application remains only in respect of applicant nos. 1 and 2 and the following order is passed in their respect.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶10

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 40 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short, the "Gangsters Act"), Police Station Shahganj, District Jaunpur during the pendency of the trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that according to the gang chart, one case is shown against the applicant nos. 1 and 2 and in the said case they have been enlarged on bail. It is next contended that apart from the case mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are involved in three other cases. In the said cases also they have been granted bail.

¶12

He further submits that in the 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 nos. 1 and 2 are vague. In absence of allegation concerning an act or omission on the part of an accused, covered by the definition of terms "gang" and "gangster" as provided under Section 2 of the Gangsters Act, no F.I.R. is maintainable. In the instant case, the F.I.R. is based upon the

¶13

pending criminal cases and not upon any new allegations or discovery of facts having serious reflection on the society, for which purpose the Gangsters Act was enacted.

¶14

It is also submitted that considering the facts of the case, as stated above, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are not guilty of the offence under the Gangsters Act and that they would not commit the offence while on bail nor would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be. The applicant nos. 1 and 2 are in jail since 04.01.2023.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶16

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record as well as taking note of Section 19(4)(b) of the Gangsters Act, in light of the submission of counsel for the applicant nos. 1 and 2 to the effect that while on bail in this case the applicant nos. 1 and 2 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 nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application insofar as it pertains to applicant nos. 1 and 2 is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant nos. 1 and 2- Hisamuddin and Shahnawaj, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that the applicant nos. 1 and 2:

¶18

(i) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶19

(ii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

¶20

(iii) shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 6.9.2023 SKT/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hisamuddin and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hisamuddin and 2 Others 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

Mahesh Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Amit Tripathi Vs State of U.P.

Kallu Khan Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P.

Balram Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Vs State of U.P.