Allahabad High Court
Ram Gopal Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 23 November, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:183872 Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36776 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Gopal Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Durga Prasad Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. By means of the instant bail application, applicant is seeking bail in Case Crime No. 556 of 2023, under Sections 3(1), 2(b)(1), 2(b)(11), 2(b)(25) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Chauri Chaura, District- Gorakhpur during pendency of trial.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there are 4 cases shown in the gang chart against applicant, in which cases he is already on bail, the bail orders are annexed as Annexure no. 3, 5, 7 and 8 to the affidavit. It is also submitted that other criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph 9 to 15 of the affidavit. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and the provision of Gangster Act is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Co-accused Shiv Sagar Yadav have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 12.2.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. 914 of 2024. Applicant is languishing in jail since 06.07.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. The applicant is neither a gangster nor he is a member of any gang.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the factual matrix of the case.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the provision of Gangster Act has been invoked against the applicant on the basis of 4 criminal cases. However, applicant has been released on bail in the aforesaid cases. Learned A.G.A. has not produced any material to demonstrate that the applicant comes within the definition of "Gangster" and "Gang" under U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Mere pendency of criminal case may not ipso facto invoke provisions of U.P. Act No.7 of 1986.
6. It is not in dispute by learned A.G.A. that the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in the criminal cases shown in the gang chart. Once the applicant has been enlarged on bail in previous criminal cases shown in the gang chart which forms the foundation for lodging of the criminal cases under the Gangster Act, this Court see no valid ground to detain the applicant in custody.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant Ram Gopal Yadav involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/ or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
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.
vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
vii. In the event, the applicant changes his residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.
9. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
10. However, it is made clear that the observations made above may not be taken into consideration in any manner whatsoever by the learned Trial court while adjudicating or expediting the trial in the aforesaid case crime.
Order Date :- 23.11.2024 Shaswat