Ramesh Rai @ Matru Rai vs State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 1318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Subhash Vidyarthi J.
Ramesh Rai @ Matru Rai - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. - Opposite Party
Criminal MISC. Bail Application No. 46497 of 2022
Decided On : 13-12-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Ran Vijay Singh, Atharva Dixit, Praveen Kumar Singh.
For the Opposite Party : Ajay Singh.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 448, 386, 504, 506, 420, 120-B, 34, 406 – Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Section 3 – Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Money-Lending Act, 1976 – Sections 10, 20 22 and 23 – Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2008 – Punishment of House-trespass – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property – Heard Sri Manish Tiwari Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Praveen Kumar Singh Advocate learned counsel for applicant learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Ajay Singh Advocate learned counsel for informant victim in Case – Held, Applicant has already been granted bail in all cases mentioned in Gang-chart and in four other cases in which he is involved stands acquitted in four cases police has filed final reports in two cases and a complaint filed against him stands rejected and there is no material indicate that larger interest of public or State would be affected in case applicant is enlarged on bail – Co-accused persons have already been granted bail in present case and allegations levelled in F.I.R. against all accused persons same applicant is entitled to claim his release on bail on ground of parity also – Application is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Praveen Kumar Singh Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ajay Singh Advocate, the learned counsel for the informant / victim in Case Crime No. 74 of 2022.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2022, under Section 3 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Gangsters Act), Police Station Chetganj, District Varanasi. A copy of the Gang-chart accompanying the F.I.R. mentions involvement of the applicant in four cases, one of which is Case Crime No. 74 of 2022 under Sections 448, 386, 504, 506, 420, 120-B, 34 IPC and Sections 10 (i), 10 (ii), 22 and 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Money-Lending Act, 1976, Police Station Chetganj, Commissionerate Varanasi.

3. Sri Ajay Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the informant of Case Crime No. 74 of 2022 and he has sought to oppose the bail application.

4. Sri. Manish Tiwari Senior Advocate has opposed the intervention of the informant of Case Crime No. 74 of 2022 in the present case, i.e. Case Crime No. 126 of 2022 and he has submitted that the informant of Case Crime No. 74 of 2022 does not fall within the definition of victim of the present case and, therefore, he has no right to oppose the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant in the present case. He has further submitted that the Gangsters Act is a special enactment having an overriding effect on any other law, as provided by Section 20 of the Act, which is as follows: -

“20. Overriding effect. -The provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment.”

5. The provision for grant of bail to a person accused of an offence under the Gangsters is provided in Section 19 of the Act, the relevant portion whereof is as follows: -

“19. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code. –

* * *

(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.

(5) The limitations on granting of bail specified in sub-section (4) are in addition to the limitations under the Code.”

6. Section 19 (4) contains a provision for giving an opportunity to the public prosecutor to oppose the application for release of a person on bail but there is no provision giving such right to any person other than the Public Prosecutor.

7. Replying to the aforesaid objection, Sri Ajay Singh has stated that although the present case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the Inspector In-charge, the F.I.R. mentions that the applicant is involved in commission of several offences, one of which being Case Crime No. 74 of 2022. He has further submitted that since Case Crime No. 74 of 2022 forms the basis for lodging of the present case, the victim of Case Crime No. 74 of 2022 is also a victim of the present case.

8. Sri Ajay Singh, Advocate has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh Vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu (2022) 9 SCC 321.

9. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the parties.

10. The question whether a victim of a predicate offence can claim a right of hearing to oppose the bail application of a person accused under the Gangsters Act has been dealt with by a co-ordinate Bench of