Allowed

Raju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 May 2025BAIL/6775/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge permitted bail to Raaju under the Gangsters Act, 1986. Court noted vague FIR allegations against defining 'gangster' and absence of tampering risk, granting bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and specific undertakings not to tamper or seek adjournments during evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail via personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against intimidation, tampering, and mandatory attendance for trial dates.

Raju vs State of U.P. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83817

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6775 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accusedapplicant, Raju , seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.01 of 2025 ,under section 3(1) U. P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 P.S. Saifai, DistrictEtawah, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. In gang-chart annexed as Annexure No. 2, five criminal cases have been mentioned against the applicant in which he has been enlarged on bail. Copy of the bail orders have been annexed as Annexure no.3 to the bail application. It is next submitted that accused applicant has criminal history of six cases apart from the cases shown in the gangchart which has been explained in para-9 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and in para-3 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant is not a member or leader or organizer of a gang and he has not abetted or assisted in the activities of a gang as enumerated in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act. 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.

¶10

It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the

¶11

applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 07.01.2025, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶13

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let applicant, Raju be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶15

(i) 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.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶19

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

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its

¶22

independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Asha

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivashish Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Ashok Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Satyendra Kumar Shukla vs Addl. Principal Judge Family Court, District Lucknow and 2 Others

Saif Siddiqui vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Shrawan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Sheela Verma @ Shila Verma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another