Allowed

Kishore Yadav and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2023BAIL/29355/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed the release of applicants charged under the U.P. Gangster Act. The court held that since the applicants were already on bail in the case forming the foundation for the Gangster Act invocation, there was no valid ground for continued custody.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants Kishore Yadav and Bhukkhal Yadav on bail in Case Crime No.147 of 2023 subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each.

Kishore Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175961

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29355 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kishore Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Shukla 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 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 applicants 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 and Annexure S.A.-1. 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 12.6.2023 and in case he is 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 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 applicants on the basis of one criminal case. However, applicants have been released on bail in the aforesaid case. 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.

¶11

Criminal history of the applicant has been adequately explained.

¶12

The applicant in the present case has been implicated on the basis of the criminal case detailed in the gang chart. It is not in dispute by learned A.G.A. that the applicants have already been enlarged on bail in the criminal case showing in the gang chart. Once the applicant has been enlarged on bail in previous criminal case shown in the gang chart which forms the foundation for lodging of the criminal case under the Gangster Act. This Court see no valid ground to detain the applicants in custody once the applicants have already been enlarged on bail in the case shown in the gang chart.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has not shown any other criminal history of the applicants.

¶14

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.

¶15

Let the applicants Kishore Yadav and Bhukkhal Yadav involved in Case Crime No.147 of 2023, under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Piparaich, 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

ii. The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

iii. The applicants 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.

¶19

iv. 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.

¶20

v. The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

vii. In the event, the applicants change their residential address, the applicants shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 6.9.2023 Bhaskar

¶26

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kishore Yadav and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Yadav 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

Smt. Tara Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P through Secretary (Home)

Aas Mohammad @ Boda Vs State of U.P.

Museer Vs State of U.P.

Mubarik @ Kaka Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Vs State of U.P.