Single-judge bench allowed bail to Sanjay Yadav in a Gangster Act case. The court noted the single-case provision and pending co-accused cases but relied on the principle that bail is the rule.
Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering and further criminal activity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2927 of 2023
Applicant :- Sanjay Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Sanjay Yadav with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.96 of 2022, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986, P.S. Shikohabad, District Firozabad, during pendency of the trial.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that single case has been shown in the gang-chart against the applicant. On account of single case provision of Gangster Act has been imposed. The applicant is on bail in the case shown in the gang chart. Bail order is annexed as Annexure No.3 with bail application. Apart from cases shown in the gang chart, three other cases are pending against the applicant. Bail orders are annexed with the bail application. He is not a member of any gang. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets.The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.09.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.
The Hon. Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I. (2012) 1 SCC 40, has observed that:
21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Sanjay Yadav, who is involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 7.2.2023 SKD
Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986.
Whether the single-case provision of the Gangster Act precludes the grant of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I.Referred¶9
Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I. (2012) 1 SCC 40 · Who else cites this
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & AnotherReferred¶13
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021
Sanjay Yadav
State of U.P.
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Deepak Verma
Parties & counsel
