Point of Law : Grant of Bail - there is only one case pending against the applicant and that too of a criminal conspiracy, the twin conditions referred to in Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, stand satisfied and it is a fit case for bail.

JUDGMENT :

1. Counter Affidavit filed by learned counsel, Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Vivek Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the victim (in the case of murder), and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 54 of 2022, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Tulsipur, District-Balrampur, during the pendency of trial.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:-

4. Learned counsel for applicant has stated that applicant is a lady, aged 28 years and has her children to tender to. It is argued by the learned counsel that the prosecution under the Gangsters Act has been launched against the applicant on the basis of one criminal case shown in the gang chart, in which she has already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 20.4.2022. The details of criminal case have been mentioned in paragraph 6 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application. In the said criminal case, the role of the applicant is shown to be of criminal conspiracy only. She has been falsely implicated in the present case due to political rivalry. She is not the member of any gang. It is further stated that there is no other criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.1.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the victim, Sri Sushil Kumar Singh (in the said case of murder in which applicant is on bail) has vehemently argued that he has a right to be heard and he has relied on the judgements of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, wherein it has been opined that the bails of the Gangsters Act should not be leniently taken up.

6. Learned counsel for the victim of the predicate offence under Section 302 IPC has placed much reliance on Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, which reads as follows :-

“Section-19(4)-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless :

(a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”

7. Learned counsel has further stated that the provisions of Clause 19(4) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 are at par with Section 37 of the NDPS Act, wherein twin conditions are in matters of commercial recovery of contraband.

8. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Jagjeet Singh & Others Versus Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Another, 2022 (3) BLJ 169, wherein it has been stated that a 'victim' within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings.

9. Learned counsel has further relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Sudha Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 2021, wherein it has been opined that the accused person, who has been prosecuted in fifteen cases for serious offences including murder, attempt to murder and criminal conspiracy, should not have been granted bail under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and the said bail was set aside by the Supreme Court.

10. The learned counsel has further stated that the property worth crores of rupees belonging to the father of the applicant has been attached and even his three bank accounts have also been attached by the State. Learned counsel has n