IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.
Amar Mani Tripathi – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. - 3614 of 2024
Decided On : 22-03-2024
Gangster Act - Criminal Proceeding - U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 363, 364, 364A, 216A, 212, 120B IPC, 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for staying the order dated 01.11.2023 and further proceeding of S.T. No. 02 of 2022 (State versus Shivam @ Ram Yagya and others) arising from case crime no. 1207 of 2001, under Sections 363, 364, 364A, 216A, 212, 120B IPC and Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the criminal proceeding under the Gangster Act based on a single case is not liable to be quashed. It also held that the accused, already on bail under certain sections, cannot be allowed to furnish bail bond in a non-bailable offence under the Special Act, instead of seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Issues: 1. Whether the criminal proceeding under the Gangster Act on the basis of a single case is liable to be quashed. 2. Whether the accused, already on bail under certain sections, can be allowed to furnish bail bond in a non-bailable offence under the Special Act, instead of seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the criminal proceeding under the Gangster Act based on a single case is not liable to be quashed. It also ruled that the accused, already on bail under certain sections, cannot be allowed to furnish bail bond in a non-bailable offence under the Special Act, instead of seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The application was rejected, and the court found no illegality in the impugned order dated 01.11.2023. It was stated that if the applicant appears and applies for regular bail, the same shall be decided on the same day.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajatsatru Panday learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. A.K. Sand, learned Government Advocate, assisted by Mr. J.K. Upadhyay, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh and Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocates for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
Relief
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant for staying the order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the 7th Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.) Basti as well as for staying the further proceeding of S.T. No. 02 of 2022 (State versus Shivam @ Ram Yagya and others), arising out of case crime no. 1207 of 2001, under Sections 363, 364, 364A, 216A, 212, 120B IPC and Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti, pending in the Court of 7th Additional District and Sessions Judge /Special Judge (M.P. /M.L.A.), Basti.
Facts of this case
3. This is old matter of the year 2002. Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated in chronological order as pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties are as follows:
3.1. On 06.12.2001, a first information report was lodged by one Dharmraj Maddheshiya against some unknown persons alleging inter-alia that as usual, today my son Rahul Maddheshiya left the house for school at around 07:45 am on a bicycle in gray coloured pant, white long sleeves shirt, maroon coloured half sweater and blazer. When he reached in front of Dr. Ramkumar Gupta’s house, some people suddenly came in a white coloured Maruti Car and started forcing him to sit in car. When he protested, they beat him up, forced him to sit in car and ran away. Many people present there have seen the incident. Said report was registered as Case Crime No. 1207 of 2001, under Section 364 I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali, District Basti.
3.2. In above case after culmination of investigation charge-sheet No. 25 of 2002 dated 26.01.2002 under Sections 364, 364A, 216A, 212, 120B I.P.C. was filed against the applicant-Amar Mani Tripathi by the investigating officer in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti. The applicant-Amar Mani Tripathi surrendered in the above case crime no. 1207 of 2001 before the concerned court below and his bail application was rejected by the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Basti vide order dated 30.01.2002. Subsequently he had been granted bail by the High Court vide order dated 01.02.2002.
3.3.After approval of gang chart on 05.01.2002 by the District Magistrate, charge sheet No. 25A dated 30.05.2002 under Sections 364, 364A, 216A, 212, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was filed against co-accused Sandeep Tripathi, Hanuman Shukla, Shivam alias Ram Yagya, Ajay Mishra, Mainesh Sharma and Anand Singh in the Court of Special Judge (Gangster Act), Gorakhpur.
3.4.When new District Magistrate, took over charge in district Basti, he directed to prepare revised gang chart of all the accused persons, who were involved in case crime no. 1207 of 2001. Accordingly fresh gang chart of all the accused namely Amar Mani Tripathi, Sandeep Tripathi, Hanuman Shukla, Shivam Shukla, Ajay Mishra, Nainesh Sharma, Anand Singh, Ramvilas, Jag Prasad Verma and Santosh Shukla was prepared by senior Sub-Inspector Kotwali, Basti on 30.06.2002, which was recommended by then Superintendent of Police, Basti on 15.07.2002 and finally approved by the District Magistrate on 02.09.2002.
3.5.After aforesaid approval dated 02.09.2002, charge-sheet no. 25B dated 26.10.2002 under Sections 364, 364A, 216A, 212, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was filed against co-accused Ram Vilash and Jag Prasad in the Court of Special Judge (Gangster Act) Gorakhpur.
3.6. Thereafter a separate charge-sheet no. 25C dated 26.10.2002 under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangste
Hamida versus Rashid alias Rasheed and others (2008) 1 SCC 747
Niranjan Singh and another Versus Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others
Pankaj Jain versus Union of India and another (2018) 5 SCC 743
Pradeep Ram versus State of Jharkhand and another (2019) 17 SCC 326
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. and Another
State of A.P. versus Golconda Linga Swamy and another (2004) 6 SCC 522
The court clarified that the accused, already on bail under certain sections, cannot be allowed to furnish bail bond in a non-bailable offence under the Special Act, instead of seeking regular bail u....
Personal appearance is mandatory for bond acceptance under Section 88 Cr.P.C., and non-compliance can lead to rejection of applications.
(1) In bailable offence, right of accused to get bail is absolute and indefeasible right and courts have no discretion in granting bail.(2) Criminal Courts should consider bail applications particula....
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 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 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 entitlement to bail under Section 436A of Cr.P.C. and the liberty granted by the Supreme Court to file a fresh bail application if the trial extends beyond six months of the dismissal of the prev....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.