Allowed

Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2023BAIL/31400/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a bail application filed by Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart in a case under the U.P. Gangsters Act. The court found the allegations vague and accepted the applicant's undertaking not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, granting bail on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on personal bond and two sureties on conditions not to tamper with evidence, not to pressurize witnesses, and to appear before the trial court.

Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167588

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31400 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Agrahari,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the State, is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 212 of 2021, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

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 twenty other cases. Out of said cases in five cases the applicant has been enlarged on bail, during the pendency of the the present case, in two cases the applicant has also been enlarged on bail, in six cases the final report has been submitted, in three cases proceedings have been stayed, in one case arrest of the applicant has been stayed by this Court, in two cases investigation is going on, whereas in one case the proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. have been quashed by this Court.

¶10

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

¶11

society, for which purpose the Gangsters Act was enacted.

¶12

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 would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be. The applicant is in jail since 01.07.2020.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

Let the applicant- Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart , 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:

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 21.8.2023 Lbm/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart 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

Asraf Vs State of U.P.

Sachin @ Akriti Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Kumar @ Ramjeet Vs State of U.P.

Danish Vs State of U.P.

Khalid Kuraishi @ Loti Vs State of U.P.

Ansar Ahmed Vs State of U.P.