Allowed

Sanjay Maurya and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2023BAIL/44450/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Allowed bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC. Applicants sought release in cases involving the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities Act, 1986.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on personal bond and two sureties each subject to specific conditions regarding appearance, evidence tampering, and witness pressure.

Sanjay Maurya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:212781

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44450 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjay Maurya And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yadvesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 110 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police StationNaugarh, District- Chandauli, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that according to the gang chart, one case is shown against the applicants and in the said case the applicants have been enlarged on bail. It is next contended that apart from the case mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant no. 2 is involved in two 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 applicants 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.

¶10

It is also submitted that considering the facts of the case, as stated above, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants are not guilty of the offence under the Gangsters Act and that they 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 applicants are in jail since 28.07.2023.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

Let the applicants- Sanjay Maurya, Surendra Kumar Maurya and Sonu involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that they:

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 6.11.2023 Sachin Mishra

¶19

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

Sanjay Maurya and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Maurya and 2 Others 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

Pooran Singh Vs State of U.P.

Israr Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Vs State of U.P.

Atiullah Alias Munnu Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Shaqib and Another Vs State of U.P.

Net Ram Vs State of U.P.