IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 04 of2023, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Kharela, District-Mahoba, during the pendency of trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the gang chart, two cases are shown against the applicant and in the said cases the applicant has been enlarged on bail.

4. He further submits that in the F.I.R., in issue, the allegations with regard to disturbing the public order, as also regarding gaining undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage of like nature against the applicant are vague. In absence of allegation concerning an act or omission on the part of an accused, covered by the definition of terms “gang” and “gangster” as provided under Section 2 of the Gangsters Act, no F.I.R. is maintainable. In the instant case, the F.I.R. is based upon the pending criminal cases and not upon any new allegations or discovery of facts having serious reflection on the society, for which purpose the Gangsters Act was enacted.

5. It is also submitted that considering the facts of the case, as stated above, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence under the Gangsters Act and that he would not commit the offence while on bail nor would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be. The applicant is in jail since 18.07.2023.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

7. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record as well as taking note of Section 19(4) (b) of the Gangsters Act, in light of the submission of counsel for the applicant to the effect that while on bail in this case, the applicant would not commit any crime/offence nor would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner, whatsoever it may be, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant-Aryan Lodhi, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.