Allowed

Sourabh Vickky v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2023BAIL/47258/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed. The Allahabad High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail as the FIR lacked specific allegations fitting the definition of 'gang' or 'gangster' under the Gangsters Act, and the State could not adequately oppose the arguments.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties under conditions not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Sourabh Vickky Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:223044

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47258 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sourabh Vickky Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Singh Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit, filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder 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 applicant on bail in Case Crime No.58 of 2020, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Badgaon, District Saharanpur, during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

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.

¶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 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 solitary criminal case 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 applicant is not guilty of the offence under the Gangsters Act and 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 16.12.2019.

¶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- Sourabh Vickky , 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 :- 24.11.2023 S.S.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sourabh Vickky v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sourabh Vickky 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

Gaurav Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Manish Gupta Alias Mintu Lal Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Lal Bahadur @ Dealer Vs State of U.P.

Irfan @ Fana @ Pahalwan Vs State of U.P.

Hridesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.