The court granted bail, emphasizing the importance of individual rights and the presumption of innocence under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Act, 1986.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Prakash Singh, J.

1. Supplementary Affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Act 1986') Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Sitapur.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He submits that one case has been shown in the gang chart against the applicant, in which he has been enlarged on bail. Except apart this case, there are other six cases criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained.

5. It is further submitted that the allegations for disturbing the public order and gaining undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage against the applicant, are vague and concocted. Further submitted that narration of the first information report, transpires that the allegations are based upon pending criminal case(s) and not upon the newly allegation(s) or discovery of fact(s) having serious impact on the society at large, for the reasons, the Act was promulgated 1986. He added that the police is using the provisions of the Act, 1986, as a weapon to harass and intimidate the applicant and further, it also appears that the district administration, in order to show the good work or to seek appreciation from the higher authorities, has invoked the provisions of the Act, which is uncalled for and unjustified.

6. Adding his arguments, he submits that the applicant is not involved in any anti social activities and he is neither Member nor the Leader of any gang.

7. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25-07-2024 and he is not guilty of the offence under the Act 1986 and he undertakes that he would not commit any offence while on bail and would never try to tamper the evidences or would influence the witnesses and would never jump the conditions of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Therefore, submission is that the applicant is entitled for bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid, but, he has fairly conceded that in the case (s) mentioned in the gang chart (cases explained other than the gang chart), the applicant(s), is on bail.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25-07-2024 and criminal history has been explained and he has undertaken that he would not misuse the liberty of bail.

9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

10. Let the applicant-Amit Kumar Dixit, involved in the aforementioned crime 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, with the following conditions:-

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his abs