Allowed

Vijay @ Mulayam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2023BAIL/29389/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the court considered vague allegations in an FIR under the U.P. Gangsters Act. After hearing submissions regarding the applicability of the Act and the applicant's conduct, the court allowed the bail application, releasing the applicant on personal bond and sureties with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant, Vijay @ Mulayam, was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, conditioned not to tamper with evidence, pressurize witnesses, and to appear on fixed dates.

Vijay @ Mulayam Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:158070

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29389 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vijay @ Mulayam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sitaram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 101 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Muhamdabad, District- Mau, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the gang chart, two cases are shown against the applicant and in the said cases the applicant has been enlarged on bail. It is next contended that apart from the cases mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant is involved in five other cases. In the said cases also he has been enlarged on bail.

¶9

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 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 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. It is next submitted that the provisions of the Gangsters Act could not be used as a weapon to wreak vengeance or harass or intimidate citizens or to settle scores on political or other fronts.

¶10

It is also submitted that considering the facts of the case, as stated above, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence under the Gangsters Act and that he would not commit the offence while on bail nor

¶11

would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be. The applicant is in jail since 13.06.2023.

¶12

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

¶13

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 to the effect that while on bail in this case, the applicant 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 is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Vijay @ Mulayam , involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

¶15

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 7.8.2023

¶20

Sachin Mishra

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay @ Mulayam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay @ Mulayam 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

Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P.

Chandan Chauhan Alias Amarjeet Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Singh Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Singh @ Deepa Vs State of U.P.

Lauhar Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Vs State of U.P.