Allowed¶13

Shashank Mehta Alias Vikki v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2025BAIL/7760/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Ashutosh Srivastava, J., 19.05.2025) — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7760 of 2025, Shashank Mehta alias Vikki v. State of U.P. Bail granted under S. 483 BNSS 2023 in Gangsters Act case (S. 3(1)), Case Crime No. 860 of 2023, P.S. Majhola, Moradabad; S. 19(4) Gangsters Act considered; S. 2(b) 'gang' membership denied by applicant; two cases in gang-chart, bail in all; custody since 06.08.2023; conditions incl. appearance under S. 351 BNSS; no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Shashank Mehta alias Vikki in Case Crime No. 860 of 2023 (Section 3(1), U.P. Gangsters Act, P.S. Majhola, Moradabad) on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions (i)-(v); breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail. ¶13

Shashank Mehta Alias Vikki vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Shashank Mehta alias Vikki should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 860 of 2023 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters Act, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Court's answer

Considering the totality of facts, the nature and evidence on record, and the provision of Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangsters Act, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the court found it a fit case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence/witnesses, personal presence at key trial stages (including statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S.), no adjournment seeking when witnesses are present, and attendance on each date personally or through counsel; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶13

Key takeaways

Anything said in the order is limited to the purpose of determining the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits; the trial court remains free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the evidence.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail under S. 483 BNSS, 2023 read with S. 19(4), U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — applicant sought bail in Case Crime No. 860 of 2023, S. 3(1) Gangsters Act, P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad; gang-chart showed two cases with applicant on bail in all; no other case pointed out by the State; applicant in jail since 06.08.2023 with trial unlikely to conclude early. Court, considering totality of facts, nature and evidence and S. 19(4) of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on merits, held it a fit case for bail and allowed the application. Bail ordered on personal bond and two reliable sureties with conditions: no inducement/threat/tampering, no pressurising prosecution witnesses, personal presence at opening of case, framing of charge and statement under S. 351 BNSS, undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses present, and presence on each date personally or through counsel; breach a ground for cancellation. Observations confined to bail determination; trial court free to reach independent conclusions.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83322

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7760 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Shashank Mehta Alias Vikki Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Yagyavalk Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant - Shashank Mehta Alias Vikki with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 860 of 2023, under Section 3(1) Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station- Majhola, DistrictMoradabad during pendency of the 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, two criminal cases have been shown and in all the cases, the applicant is on bail.

¶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. Applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid case. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 06.08.2023 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.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but has not pointed out any other case against the

¶11

applicant except the cases shown by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

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 .

¶13

Let applicant, Shashank Mehta Alias Vikki 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-

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

(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 351 B.N.S.S.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Anjali

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shashank Mehta Alias Vikki v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashank Mehta Alias Vikki v. State of U.P.

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

Raj Kumar Agarwal vs State of U.P.

Rajat Kumar Tripathi Alias Shani Tripathi vs State of U.P.

Umesh Paswan vs State of U.P.

Surendra vs State of U.P.

Rahul Kumar vs State of U.P.

Nadeem Alias Govinda vs State of U.P.