Allowed

Mohd. Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2023BAIL/51045/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court relied on vague FIR allegations failing to define a 'gang' per the Gangsters Act. Finding grounds to believe the applicant is not guilty and will not tamper with evidence, the court released him on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the same amount, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or pressurize witnesses and to appear for trial.

Mohd. Ahmad Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:225023

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51045 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Thakur Prasad Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

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.432 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short, the "Gangsters Act"), Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the gang chart, only one case is shown against the applicant and in the said case the applicant has been enlarged on bail.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 13.10.2023.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

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.

¶13

Let the applicant- Mohd Ahmad , 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:

¶14

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶15

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

¶16

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 29.11.2023

¶19

Lbm/-

¶20

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

Mohd. Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ahmad 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

Chhattarpal Vs State of U.P.

Babi Chaudhari @ Ankit Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Lekhpal Vs State of Up through Princi. Secre. Home Gov. Of Up at and 3ors

Sanoj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Tabrez Vs State of U.P.