Allowed

Amarnath Yadav @ Chhamanath v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2023BAIL/44785/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an applicant facing charges under the U.P. Gangsters Act, accepting arguments that FIR allegations were vague regarding the definition of 'gang' and noting the applicant was already on bail for related pending cases.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties under conditions of not tampering with evidence or witnesses and appearing in courts.

Amarnath Yadav @ Chhamanath Vs State of U.P. — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:203973

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44785 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Amarnath Yadav @ Chhamanath Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Preetam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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. 45 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short, the "Gangsters Act"), Police Station Maharajganj, District Jaunpur during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the gang chart, one case is shown against the applicant and in the said case the applicant has been enlarged on bail. It is next contended that apart from the case mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant is involved in another case. In the said case also he has been granted 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 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.

¶10

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

¶11

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 03.10.2023.

¶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- Amarnath Yadav @ Chhamanath, 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 :- 26.10.2023 SKT/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amarnath Yadav @ Chhamanath v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarnath Yadav @ Chhamanath 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

Naushad Vs State of U.P.

Ganesh Yadav Alias Manish Yadav Alias Mintu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sajid Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Kanaujiya Vs State of U.P.

Girish Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Thakur Vs State of U.P.