Allowed

Dilawar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2023BAIL/6953/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicant sought release in a case under the U.P. Gangsters Act where bail had been granted in other related cases. The court allowed bail pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond, two heavy sureties, appearing on fixed dates, not tampering with evidence, not leaving the district without leave, and appearing at the police station on the

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194083

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6953 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dilawar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal,Zafar Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 405 of 2022, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police StationBudhana, District- Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of 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. It is next contended that apart from the cases mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant is involved in sixteen cases. Out of said cases, five cases arises out of Arms Act, in one case, the applicant has been acquitted whereas in ten 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 he 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 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

¶12

would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be. The applicant is in jail since 22.01.2023.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

Let the applicant- Dilawar , involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he:

¶16

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶17

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶18

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶19

(iv) shall not leave district without the leave of the trial court; and,

¶20

(v) shall appear on the first Sunday of every month at the Police Station concerned.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 9.10.2023 Sachin Mishra

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dilawar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilawar 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

Amrit Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Mahendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Bijendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sahil Vs State of U.P.

Dharmraj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Jeeshan Vs State of U.P.