The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the U.P. Gangsters Act, particularly focusing on the definitions of 'gang' and 'gangster' under Section 2(c) and Section 2(b) of the Act, and the restrictions on grant of bail under Section 19(4).

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kamal Kishore, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar and Pradeep Kumar Rai, the counsel for the applicant and Sri P. C. Srivastava, Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar, Additional Government Advocate.

2. The present bail application has been filed seeking enlargement of bail of the applicant in FIR No.0314 of 2023 instituted against the applicant under section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur hereinafter referred to as ‘Gangster Act’.

3. The averments, in brief, are that the applicant was being tried for an offence under section 386 IPC vide case crime no.111 of 2023, P.S. Kotwali, District Ghazipur. The applicant applied for bail in the said case and was enlarged on bail vide order dated 26.05.2023, contained in Annexure no.3. Subsequently, according to the counsel for the applicant, with a view to frustrate the enlargement on bail, the offence under section 3(1) of the Gangster Act was imposed against the applicant vide case crime no.314 of 2023.

4. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that in the Gang Chart prepared and filed on record as Annexure no.2, it was stated that the applicant being the gang member of the Gang Leader Mukhtar Ansari was involved in criminal offences, which has led to fear in general public and because of the applicant causing such criminal acts, the ‘public order’ was adversely affected and there was a fear amongst the people. It was also recorded that on account of the said fear, no one was ready and willing to give evidence. In the gang chart which was prepared in pursuance to the rules framed under the Act, it was stated that on 03.03.2023, an information was received that in a case being tried against the applicant as Case No.2 of 2020 arising out of crime no.1202 of 2009, date 14.03.2023 was fixed for evidence and on account of trying to influence the witnesses in the said case, on 28.02.2023 at about 3:30 pm, the elder brother of the applicant along with certain other persons threatened the witnesses not to give any evidence and a demand of Rs.5,00,000/-(Five Lacs) was also made from the said witness, failing which it was threatened that the children of the witness shall be eliminated. Based upon the said incident, a view was formed that the entire gang indulged in threatening the people. Based upon the said view, the Gang Chart was prepared on 26.06.2023 in terms of the Rule 18 of the Rules framed under the Gangsters Act and the FIR in question was registered against the applicant and two other persons for trying the applicant for an offence under section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster Act.

5. The contention of counsel for the applicant is that with regard to alleged threat issued to the alleged witnesses for not deposing in the case against the applicant, the applicant had applied for bail and was granted bail by the Trial Court vide order dated 26.05.2023 which bail order has not been challenged by the State and no application has been moved for cancellation of the bail. If the material as indicated in the Gang Chart was present, it was incumbent upon the State to have taken the steps for cancellation of the bail, which were not taken for the reasons best known to the State. He argues that despite not filing any bail cancellation application, the State chose to avoid release of the applicant in the said case, which is primarily a misuse of the power conferred upon the State. He argues that subsequent to the lodging of the FIR in question, the said witness to whom allegedly threats were issued has also deposed and the said case has reached the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the light of the said, he argues that the applicant should be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has strongly opposed the bail application by arguing that in terms of the provisions contained in the U.P. Gang