Back
SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Raja Quraishi – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 06 of 2024, under Sections-2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention), Act, 1986, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jhansi, during pendency of trial.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there are two cases shown in the gang chart against applicant, in which case he is already on bail, the bail orders are collectively annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit. It is also submitted that apart from the gang chart, applicant has criminal history of one more case to his credit, the bail order of which is also annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit along with other bail orders. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is neither the gang leader nor organizer nor member of the gang and the provision of Gangster Act may not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 29.02.2024 and in case he is released on bail,
The grant of bail was based on the lack of valid grounds for detention and the applicant's previous bail orders.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere pendency of a criminal case may not automatically invoke the provisions of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) ....
Grant of Bail - There is no apprehension that, if the facility of bail is granted to the applicant, he may flee from the course of law or he will not appear before the Court below.
Vague allegations in an F.I.R. under the Gangsters Act do not justify denial of bail; reasonable grounds for believing the applicant is not guilty warrant bail.
The court established that vague allegations in an F.I.R. are insufficient to invoke the provisions of the Gangsters Act, emphasizing the need for specific acts or omissions to substantiate charges.
The court emphasized the balance between individual liberty and societal safety in granting bail under certain conditions as established in statutory law and precedent.
Bail under the U.P. Gangster Act requires proof of non-guilt and assurance against re-offending; extensive criminal history negates bail eligibility.
The court considered the absence of criminal history apart from the case shown in the gang chart and the undertaking of the applicant not to misuse the liberty of bail as grounds for allowing the bai....
Bail granted - Failure by person released on bail or bond to appear in Court - There is no possibility of applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses - Applicant i....
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
