Allowed

Rajjan Gupta and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2023BAIL/45013/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the applicants are liable to be released on bail in a case under the U.P. Gangsters Act, relying on Section 19(4)(b) and the statement that they would not commit new crimes or tamper with evidence, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, on conditions against tampering evidence, pressuring witnesses, and ensuring appearance at court.

Rajjan Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:210813

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45013 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajjan Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 92 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 Baburi, District Chandauli during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that according to the gang chart, two cases are shown against the applicant no. 1 and one case is shown against the applicant no. 2 and in the said cases the applicants have 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 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.

¶11

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

¶12

any manner whatsoever it may be. The applicant nos. 1 and 2 are in jail since 07.04.2023 and 18.09.2023 respectively.

¶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 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.

¶15

Let the applicants- Rajjan Gupta and Kuldeep Sharma, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

¶16

(i) the applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶17

(ii) the applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

¶18

(iii) the applicants shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶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 :- 2.11.2023 SKT/-

¶21

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

Rajjan Gupta and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajjan Gupta 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

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Intezar Vs State of U.P.

Faheem Vs State of U.P.

Naseem Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar @ Akash Vs State of U.P.