Shakeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.605 of 2025, under Section- 2(b)/17/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police StationMohammadi, District- Lakhimpur Kheri with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶13

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. It is further submitted that one case has been shown in the gang chart against the applicant and in which, the applicant is on bail. It is also submitted that apart from the case shown in gang chart, the applicant has a criminal history of ten cases, which has been explained in paragraph 11 of the instant application.

¶14

He 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.

¶15

He 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.

¶16

He 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

¶17

BAIL No. 9733 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

higher authorities of Government or ruling party has invoked the provisions of the Act, which is unjustified.

¶20

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.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this matter since 02.09.2025 and 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but has fairly conceded that in the case(s) mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant is on bail.

¶24

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record as well as totality of fact and circumstances as 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.

¶25

Let applicant- Shakeel 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:-

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶30

(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

¶31

BAIL No. 9733 of 2025

¶32

3

¶33

officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(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.

¶37

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.

¶38

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶39

October 10, 2025

¶40

Arun/-

¶41

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

Shakeel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeel 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

Meera Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Mahmood Hasan @ Mahboob Alam @ Barghey Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Istiyak @ Babbu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Brahma Dutta pandey vs Principal Judge, Family Court Raibareli and others

Sujeet Kashyap @ Sujeet Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Puttilal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.