Allowed

Laddan @ Rahmat Ali v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2023BAIL/47520/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a criminal matter involving the U.P. Gangster Act. The Court held that since the applicant was already on bail in the case forming the basis of the Gangster Act invocation, there were no valid grounds to detain him, as the State failed to establish his status as a gangster.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to seven standard conditions including appearing before the trial court and not leaving India.

Laddan @ Rahmat Ali Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:219146

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47520 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Laddan @ Rahmat Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R S Dubey,Savita Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is only one case shown in the gang chart against applicant, in which case he is already on bail, the bail order is annexed as Annexure no.3 to the affidavit. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant neither the gang leader or organizer or member of the gang and the provision of Gangster Act may not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 02.05.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. In the first information report, the allegations are vague in nature and no specific instance to the effect that the applicant is member or leader or organizer of a Gang has been disclosed and as such the factual foundation under the Gangster Act is not available.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the factual matrix of the case.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the provision of Gangster Act has been invoked against the applicant on the basis of one criminal case. However, applicant has been released on bail in the aforesaid cases. Learned A.G.A. 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. Mere pendency of criminal case may not ipso facto invoke provisions of U.P. Act No.7 of 1986. Criminal history of the applicant has been

¶11

adequately explained.

¶12

The applicant in the present case has been implicated on the basis of the criminal case detailed in the gang chart. It is not in dispute by learned A.G.A. that the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in the criminal case showing in the gang chart. Once the applicant has been enlarged on bail in previous criminal case shown in the gang chart which forms the foundation for lodging of the criminal case under the Gangster Act. This Court see no valid ground to detain the applicant in custody once the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in the case shown in the gang chart.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has not shown any other criminal history of the applicant.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Laddan @ Rahmat Ali involved in Case Crime No. 320 of 2021, under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶16

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶21

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.

¶22

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶23

vii. In the event, the applicant changes his residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 20.11.2023 S.Prakash

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Laddan @ Rahmat Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laddan @ Rahmat Ali 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

Siraj Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mithlesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Manish Kumar @ Hani Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Alias Anurag Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vishal and Another Vs State of U.P.