Allowed

Abhishet Kumar @ Chotu and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2023BAIL/44348/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail application held that applicants already on bail in prior cases forming foundation for Gangster Act invocation did not qualify as gangsters since no material proved their inclusion under definition despite invocation of provisions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties each subject to specified conditions including no tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.

Abhishet Kumar @ Chotu and Another Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:224937

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44348 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Abhishet Kumar @ Chotu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Veer Singh 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 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that there are three cases shown in the gang chart against each of the applicants, in which cases they are already on bail, the bail orders are annexed as Annexure nos.4, 6 and 8 to the affidavit. 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 25.9.2023 and in case they are 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 applicants are 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 three criminal cases. However, applicants have been released on bail in the aforesaid cases. 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

¶11

ipso facto invoke provisions of U.P. Act No.7 of 1986. Criminal history of the applicants have been adequately explained.

¶12

The applicants in the present case has been implicated on the basis of the criminal cases 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 cases showing in the gang chart. Once the applicants have been enlarged on bail in previous criminal cases shown in the gang chart which forms the foundation for lodging of the criminal cases 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 cases 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 A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicants Abhishet Kumar @ Chotu and Keshav Prasad Singh involved in Case Crime No.0284 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Cholapur, District Varuna (Commissionerate Varanasi) 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 applicants shall make themselves 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 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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 29.11.2023

¶25

D. Tamang

¶26

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhishet Kumar @ Chotu and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishet Kumar @ Chotu 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

Varan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Punit Verma Vs State of U.P.

Monu @ Jaiprakash Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Binna@ Siyaram Vs State of U.P.

Rukmesh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Dayashankar Yadav Vs State of U.P.