Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
Kamlesh Pathak – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21738 of 2022
Decided on : 23-02-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506 – Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Section 3, 16, 17, 22 – Criminal Law Amendment Act – Section 7 – Arms Act – Section 25, 27 – Liberty of Bail – Learned Senior Counsel assisted by counsel for applicant learned Senior Counsel assisted counsel for informant as well learned A.G.A. for State – Held, Case of delinquent for bail is made out criminal antecedents are not to be considered gravity of offence criminal antecedents that too cases of murder attempt to murder attempt to dacoity and forgery against applicant – Court not find that there are reasonable grounds for believing that applicant is not guilty of such offence commit any offence while on bail requirement – Counsel parties nature of allegations gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of case – Court is of opinion that it is not a fit case for bail – Application of applicant is hereby rejected.
JUDGMENT :
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Anurag Shukla, counsel for the informant as well as Shri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.462 of 2020, under Section 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Auraiya, District-Auraiya, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
5. As per prosecution story, Ram Sahai, Station House Officer, P.S. Auraiya, District Auraiya alongwith other colleagues, in an official duty, was checking the vehicles and was involved in maintaining peace and order in the area and also to maintain lockdown in lieu of Covid-19 conditions by the order dated 11.07.2020 of District Magistrate. He received an information that Kamlesh Pathak is running an organized and active gang in the area as its’ leader. The members of the said gang are (i) Ramu Pathak (ii), Santosh Pathak, (iii) Kuldeep Awasthi @ Pappu, (iv) Vikalp @ Chenu Awasthi, (v) Rajesh Shukla (Bhagwatacharya), (vi) Avneesh Pratap Singh, (vii) Sonu @ Lovkush, (viii) Asheesh Dubey, (ix) Shivam Awasthi and (x) Ravindra @ Lalla Chaubey. The said leader of the gang Kamlesh Pathak alongwith all the aforesaid members is involved in garnering illegal ransom, illegally possessing government land, fighting, firing and other illegal criminal activities etc. The applicant and his gang is not afraid of firing in broad day light. The members of the gang had got the various cases instituted against them settled in the light of the said terror. Nobody dares to depose on oath in court against them whereby all those cases get culminated into acquittals.
6. On 15.03.2020, Kamlesh Pathak and his gang members had caused day light murder of advocate Manju Chaubey and his sister Sudha Chaubey to take illegal possession of land. The public at large are so much terrified of the members of the gang that nobody dares to come forward and speak or make a statement against them. Leaving them free, shall be against the interest of the public at large. The members of the gang keep on committing the offences referred in Sections 16, 17 and 22 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. Thus they usurped the properties of others and even get instituted false cases against them. It will be in the interest of public at large to book the members of the gang under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Thus, in view to put an end to the said anti-social activities of the gang, a gang chart has been prepared by him on 26.02.2020, which was sent for the sanction before the learned District Magistrate, Auraiya. After receiving the sanction from the office of the District Magistrate, Auraiya, the aforesaid eleven members of the gang were booked under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS:
For Applicant:
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been booked owing to the political rivalry and has nothing to do with the said offence. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the applicant has been granted bail in the predicate offence in Case Crime Number 189 of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the bail of the applicant has even been rejected under Section 25/27 of Arms Act by the court concerned in Case Crime No. 190 of 2022.
8. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the said criminal history stands explained as the applicant is on bail in the case no.1 mentioned in the gang-chat and the bail applicat
The court denied bail based on the applicant's extensive criminal history and the absence of reasonable grounds to believe the applicant would not commit further offences if released.
The court ruled that prior bail or acquittal in predicate offences does not guarantee bail under the Gangsters Act, emphasizing the gravity of allegations and flight risk.
The court emphasized that bail should not be granted lightly in serious cases, particularly where the accused has a significant criminal history and the allegations are grave.
The court ruled that the applicant's extensive criminal history and ongoing risks justified the denial of bail under the U.P. Gangster Act, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds for bail.
The court emphasized that bail under the U.P. Gangsters Act requires reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, which the applicant failed to establish.
The court emphasized the importance of expeditious trial conclusion and considered the criminal history of the applicant in rejecting the bail application.
A bail application can be denied based on extensive criminal history and failure to disclose complete criminal antecedents, reinforcing the principle that accused must approach the court with clean h....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
