Rizwan Zaheer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Heard Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A.-I for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record.

¶11

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.54 of 2022, under Section- 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Tulsipur, District- Balrampur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶12

The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an innocent person and he has falsely been implicated in the instant case.

¶13

It is further submitted that three cases i.e. (1) Case Crime No. 93/2021, under Sections- 147, 149, 332, 353, 504, 506, 393, 307, 427, 435 IPC; (2) Case Crime No. 94/2021, under Sections- 147, 149, 435, 427, 323, 504, 506 IPC and (3) Case Crime No. 02/2022, under Sections- 302 & 120-B IPC have been shown in the gang chart against the applicant in which, the applicant has been granted bail vide orders dated 10.05.2021, 24.06.2021 and 18.03.2024, respectively, passed by the courts concerned.

¶14

It is also submitted that apart from the cases shown in gang chart, the applicant is having criminal history of 12 cases, which has been explained in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the affidavit filed in support of instant application and a bare perusal of said paragraphs would indicate that out of 12 cases, the applicant has been exonerated in 8 cases; final report has been submitted in 1 case; exonerated by State Government itself in the case related to NSA (National Security Act) and the case related to Goonda Act stand infructuous due to efflux of time.

¶15

It is further stated that co-accused persons namely Zeba Rizwan, Rameez, Shakeel, Merajulhak and Mahfooj have already been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 23.05.2022, 25.08.2022, 19.09.2022,

¶16

BAIL No. 2099 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

12.12.2023 and 07.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4691 of 2022, 9348 of 2022, 10665 of 2022, 14452 of 2023 and 9877 of 2023.

¶19

It is further stated that from the aforesaid, it can be inferred that the applicant was implicated on account of political rivalry.

¶20

It is further stated that in 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. Further, stated that in absence of allegation concerning an act or omission on the part of an accused, covered by the definition of term "gang" and "gangster" as provided under Section 2 of the Act, no FIR is maintainable. In the instant case, the FIR is based upon the pending criminal case(s) and not upon any new allegation(s) or discovery of fact(s) having serious reflection on the society, for which purpose the Act was enacted.

¶21

It is also stated that the provisions of the Act could not be used as a weapon to wreak vengeance or harass or intimidate citizens or to settle scores on political or other fronts.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant also stated that in this case, it appears that the District Administration in order to show good work or to win laurels or seek appreciation from the higher authorities of Government or ruling party has invoked the provisions of the Act, which is unjustified.

¶23

He also stated 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. He also submitted that the applicant while on bail would not commit any crime/offence nor would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant lastly stated that the applicant is languishing in jail in this matter since 10.01.2022 and in this view of the matter, the period of incarceration would come to about 3 years and 9 months the trial of the case is at the verge of conclusion, as indicated by learned AGA, and in such a situation, if the applicant is released on bail then he could better assist his counsel to defend his case.

¶25

It is also stated that there is no apprehension that, if the facility of bail is granted to the applicant, he may flee from the course of law or he will not appear before the Court below, as also the evidence/material available on record is not strong enough to raise a presumption that the applicant is guilty of the offences mentioned in the gang chart. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶26

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail based upon the criminal history of the applicant and also the fact that the case is at the verge of final conclusion. However, he has fairly conceded that in the case(s) mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant is on bail. He also could

¶27

BAIL No. 2099 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

not dispute that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

¶30

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record as well as totality of fact and circumstances and also that co-accused have been released on bail and also taking note of Section 19(4)(b) of the Gangsters Act in light of the facts of the case and 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.

¶31

Let the applicant- Rizwan Zaheer be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶32

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶33

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶34

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶35

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶36

(v) The applicant 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.

¶37

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶38

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶39

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶40

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶41

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶42

October 16, 2025

¶43

Arun/-

¶44

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rizwan Zaheer v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rizwan Zaheer v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amrita Singh Alias Jyoti Singh and another Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat U.P. Lucknow and others

Km. Sanjana Nirmal @ Sanjana Devi Thru. Her Guardian Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Shiva Kriti Kapoor and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ram Avadh vs Kumar Vineet, Managing Director U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. Lko. and Another

Shabana Khtoon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 14 Others