Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.
Afjal Ansari - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5295 Of 2023 Connected With Government Appeal No. 198 Of 2024, Criminal Revision No. 3535 Of 2023
Decided On : 29-07-2024
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.) :
| Srl. No. | Contents |
| 1. | Details of conviction and sentence. |
| 2. | Directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. |
| 3. | Brief facts. |
| 4. | Submissions on behalf of appellant in Criminal Appeal. |
| 5. | Submissions on behalf of the State and Victim in Criminal Appeal. |
| 6. | Submissions on behalf of the State and Victim in Government Appeal and Criminal Revision. |
| 7. | Submissions on behalf of accused-Opposite party in Government Appeal and Criminal Revision. |
| 8. | Definition of Gang, Gangster and Punishment under the Gangster Act. |
| 9. | Ingredients of the Gangsters Act. |
| 10. | Main Issues. |
| 11. | Analysis about base case. |
| 12. | Analysis about gang chart. |
| 13. | Analysis about charge. |
|
| (a) Discussion about first part of charge. |
|
| (b) Discussion about second part of charge as well as prosecution evidence. |
|
| (c) Discussion about third part of charge. |
| 14. | Analysis of statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C.. |
| 15. | Analysis about defence evidence. |
| 16. | Discussion about criminal history of appellant. |
| 17. | Impact of Criminal History of Mukhtar Ansari in this case. |
| 18. | Discussion on judicial Notice. |
| 19. | Analysis about principle of estoppel. |
| 20. | Findings recorded by the Trial Court |
| 21. | Principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Farhana vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 159 and it's retrospective effect. |
| 22. | General principles of conviction or acquittal. |
| 23. | Conclusion. |
| 24. | Result. |
1. Criminal Appeal No. 5295 of 2023 under Section 18 of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 read with Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by appellant Afjal Ansari against the judgement and order dated 29.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A Court, Ghazipur in Special Session Trial No. 980 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 1052 of 2007, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as “the Gangsters Act”) police station Mohammadabad, district Ghazipur, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant to four years' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac ) and in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment.
2. A Government Appeal No. 198 of 2024 under Section 377 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the State against the judgement and order dated 29.04.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A Court, Ghazipur in Special Session Trial No. 980 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 1052 of 2007, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, police station Mohammadabad, district Ghazipur for enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellant.
3. One Piyush Kumar Rai, son of late Krishna Nand Rai (one of the deceased) of case crime No. 589 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 404, 120-B IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, police station Bhawarkol, district Ghazipur has also filed Criminal Revision No. 3535 of 2023 Under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the aforesaid judgement and order dated 29.04.2023 for enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellant.
4. After the conviction of the appellant by the Trial Court, when this appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 5295 of 2023) was filed, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.07.2023 has suspended the sentence of the appellant and he was directed to be released on bail, but prayer to stay the conviction of the appellant was rejected.
5. The State of Uttar Pradesh did not challenge the above order dated 24.07.2023, whereby this Court while suspending the sentence, granted bail to th
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is involved in gang activities; mere allegations are insufficient for conviction.
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 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 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.
(1) A person against whom a single FIR/charge sheet is filed for any of anti-social activities mentioned in section 2(b) of Gangsters Act, 1986 can be prosecuted under Gangsters Act.(2) Provisions of....
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
