Allowed

Sheeba and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2023BAIL/53719/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for two applicants accused under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Relying on specific submissions regarding vague FIR allegations and the applicants' assurance not to tamper with evidence, the High Court released them on personal bond and sureties subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or witnesses and to appear in court.

Sheeba and Another Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:237467

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53719 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sheeba And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Anupam Ananad, learned brief holder 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 applicants on bail in Case Crime No.374 of 2023, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Nakur, District Saharanpur, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that according to the gang chart, one case is shown against both the applicants and in the said case both the applicants have been enlarged on bail. It is contended that apart from the case mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant no.1 is involved in another case. In the said case also she 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 applicants 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.

¶10

It is also submitted that considering the facts of the case, as stated above, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants are 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 applicants are in jail since

¶11

28.11.2023.

¶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 applicants to the effect that while on bail in this case, the applicants 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 applicants are entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicants- Sheeba and Muskan, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on their 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 applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶16

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

¶17

(iii) the applicants 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 :- 15.12.2023 S.S.

¶20

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

Sheeba and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheeba 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

Sughad Singh Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raghuveer Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Nitin Vs State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow

Lalit @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.