Court allowed bail to applicant Brijesh Kumar Yadav. Held that State failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for guilt or exceptional circumstances like threat to public order. Bail is rule; denial not justified merely by pendency or antecedents.
Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:225775
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45453 of 2023
Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Puneet Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
a) The provision of Gangster Act has been invoked against the applicant on the basis of one criminal cases shown in the gang chart. However, the applicant has already been released on bail in the previous criminal cases.
b) No material particulars have been shown by the opposite party to demonstrate that the applicant in any manner was involved in violence or threat or show of violence or intimidation or coercion with the object of disturbing public order. No specific instances in this respect have been shown by opposite parties. No particulars have been shown by the learned A.G.A. for the State to demonstrate the date and time when the applicant can be said to be involved in violence or threat or show of violence or intimidation or coercion with the object of disturbing public order.
c) No material particular has been placed by learned A.G.A. for the State to demonstrate that applicant is involved in antisocial activity (as enumerated under section 2(b) of the U.P. Act No. 7 of 1986) for gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or another advantage for himself or any other person.
d) Learned A.G.A. for the State has not shown any material and particulars that the applicant is a person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act, whether before or after the commission of such activities. No material or circumstances has been shown by learned A.G.A. for the State that applicant harbours any person who has indulged in such activities.
e) The special rules of evidence under Section 4 of U.P. Act No. 7 of 1986 are applicable for the purpose of trial and punishment of offences under the said Act. At the stage of bail the special rules of evidence cannot be pressed unless the foundational facts have been demonstrated by the prosecution.
f) The sentence under Section 3 of the U.P. Act No. 7 of 1986 is minimum of two years and may extend to 10 years. No special circumstances have been shown by learned A.G.A. for the State to demonstrate that the applicant would be entitled to a conviction of more than 7 years at the end of the trial.
g) Mere pendency of a criminal case may not ipso facto invoke the provisions of U.P. Act No. 7 of 1986. Learned A.G.A. for the State has not produced any material to demonstrate that the applicant comes within the definition of "Gangster" and "Gang" under U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention ) Act, 1986.
h) Criminal history of the applicant has been adequately explained.
i) The applicant is in jail since 25.09.2023.
i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
v. The applicant 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.
vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.
before this Court.
Order Date :- 30.11.2023 VMA
Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the invocation of the U.P. Gangster Act without adequate material demonstrating guilt or threat to public order?
Whether the pendency of criminal cases and criminal antecedents constitute exceptional circumstances warranting denial of bail?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶22
Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 · Who else cites this
Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶24
Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Brijesh Kumar Yadav
Vikram D. Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
