Allowed

Munna Yadav @ Garjan Yadav and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2023BAIL/50434/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application by examining the applicability of the U.P. Gangster Act. The court found that since applicants were already on bail in the cases forming the basis of the Gangster Act invocation, and the State failed to produce Form No.4 or demonstrate they were entered in the gang register, the applicants made out a case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each subject to standard conditions including appearance and non-tampering.

Munna Yadav @ Garjan Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:228138

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50434 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Munna Yadav @ Garjan Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kalp Dev Mishra,Awashesh Kumar 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 applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that there are two cases shown in the gang chart against applicant no.1, in which cases he is already on bail, the bail orders are annexed as Annexure no.3 to the affidavit and there is only one case shown in the gang chart against applicant no.2, in which case he is already on bail, the bail order is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the affidavit. It is also submitted that other criminal history of the applicant no.1 has been explained in paragraph no.6 of the affidavit. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that applicants 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. Applicants are languishing in jail since 7.11.2023 and in case they are released on bail, they 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 applicants are 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 nos.1 and 2 on the basis of two and one criminal cases, respectively. However, applicants have been released on bail in the aforesaid cases. Learned A.G.A. has not produced any material to demonstrate that the applicants come within the definition of "Gangster" and "Gang" under U.P. Gangsters and

¶11

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 applicants have been adequately explained.

¶12

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

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has not shown any other criminal history of applicant no.2. There are two and one cases shown in the gang chart against the applicant nos.1 and 2, respectively. However, other criminal history of applicant no.1 (apart from the gang chart) has been pointed out by learned A.G.A. The other criminal case of the applicant no.1 has not been shown in the gang chart. No reasons have been shown by learned A.G.A. for non-inclusion of other criminal history in the gang chart. A separate list of criminal history, in Form No.4, is not attached with the gang chart detailing all the criminal activities of the gang and mentioning all the criminal cases nor abovementioned Form No.4 has been produced by learned A.G.A. before this Court. No material has been placed by learned A.G.A. to demonstrate that the name of the Applicants are entered into gang register kept in the police station concerned. The proceedings under the Gangster Act is required to be initiated by preparation of gang chart mentioning the criminal activities. It is not shown by learned A.G.A. that the details of other criminal cases against the applicants were before the authorities concerned at the time of approval of gang chart. To initiate under the Gangster Act preparation of gang chart is a condition precedent under Rule 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021. The gang chart is required to mention details of the criminal activity of the accused. The Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate is to record satisfaction on the basis of the gang chart that the foundation of action under the Gangster Act exists. When the other criminal cases of the Applicant no.1 has not been disclosed in the gang chart or Form No.4, then it can be gainfully said that initiation of proceedings under the Act is not on the basis of other criminal history of the applicant, as such other criminal history of the applicant cannot be an impediment to deny bail to the applicant, more particularly when the

¶14

applicant has been enlarged on bail in previous criminal cases.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the applicants Munna Yadav @ Garjan Yadav and Mithilesh Yadav involved in Case Crime No.157 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Bhawarkol, District Ghazipur 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

iii. The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence are exempted and/ or the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶20

iv. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶21

v. The applicants 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.

¶22

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

¶23

vii. In the event, the applicants changes their residential address, the applicants 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 :- 2.12.2023/D. Tamang

¶26

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munna Yadav @ Garjan Yadav and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Yadav @ Garjan Yadav 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

Yadvendra @ Mona Vs State of U.P.

Mithlesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mithlesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Junaid @ Nawab Vs State of U.P.

Naveen Vs State of U.P.

Shahrukh Vs State of U.P.