Allowed

Mursleem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023BAIL/39392/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application allowed. The High Court released the applicant on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. pending trial for offences under the U.P. Gangsters Act. The court found that allegations were vague and did not meet the statutory definition of 'gangster', and no tangible risk of tampering with evidence was established.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, conditioned to not tamper with evidence, not pressurize witnesses, and appear in trial.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185026

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39392 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mursleem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui,Bipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit, filed by the counsel for the applicant, 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.185 of 2023, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Partapur, District Meerut, 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.

¶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 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 14.8.2023.

¶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- Mursleem, 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 :- 25.9.2023 S.S.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mursleem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mursleem 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

Mohammad Ali Vs State of U.P.

Kamal @ Kalam Vs State of U.P.

Jaypal @ Jagpal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pannelal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Tasleem Vs State of U.P.

Govinda Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others