Allowed

Mukesh @ Bhairo Prasad Nishad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2023BAIL/50268/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge criminal miscellaneous bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed. The court observed that the F.I.R. lacked specific allegations defining a 'gang' and that the applicant could not tamper with evidence. Bail was granted subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount.

Mukesh @ Bhairo Prasad Nishad Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:234210

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50268 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh @ Bhairo Prasad Nishad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh 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. 684 of 2015, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad, during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the gang chart, four cases are shown against the applicant and in the said cases 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 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 the applicant is in jail since 23.03.2015. 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.

¶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- Mukesh @ Bhairo Prasad Nishad , 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 :- 11.12.2023 Lbm/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh @ Bhairo Prasad Nishad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh @ Bhairo Prasad Nishad 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

Idrish Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sukhram Vs State of U.P.

Sudeep @ Mota Vs State of U.P.

Prem Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P.

Nishant Vs State of U.P.

Mo. Shahid Vs State of U.P.