Allowed

Ranjeet v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2023BAIL/34840/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to Ranjeet under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a Gangsters Act case. Court held applicant entitled to release based on Section 19(4)(b) of the Act, noting vague FIR allegations against definition of 'gang' and no evidence of serious reflection on society.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties in like amount; conditioned on appearance, non-tampering of evidence, and non-pressurization of witnesses.

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190306

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34840 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ranjeet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

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. 58 of2023 , under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police StationDannahar, District- Mainpuri, during the pendency of 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 four other cases. In the said cases also he has been enlarged on bail.

¶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 society, for which purpose the Gangsters Act was enacted.

¶11

It is also submitted that considering the facts of the case, as stated above, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the

¶12

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 23.06.2023.

¶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- Ranjeet , involved in the aforesaid case 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 conditions that he:

¶16

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶17

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;and,

¶18

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶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 :- 4.10.2023 Sachin Mishra

¶21

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

Ranjeet v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandu Paardi Vs State of U.P.

Sobi Vs State of U.P.

Ram Nath Shah Vs State of U.P.

Kare Alias Indrapal Vs State of U.P.

Ram Hari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another