Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Anupam Shukla Alias Anupama Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home Up At Lko – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
1.Heard Shri Utsav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State- respondents, Shri K. K. Rao, learned counsel for the informant in predicate offence and perused the record.
2. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicant Anupam Shukla Alias Anupama Tripathi under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 339 of 2024, under Sections 2, 3(1) Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. Present case has been imposed upon the applicant on the basis of solitary case mentioned in the Gang Chart. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation against the applicant is that the applicant along with co-accused Apurva Sonkar is operating a gang and the applicant is a member of the said Gang and is habitual to commit offence under Chapter 17 and 2
The court denied bail based on the applicant's extensive criminal history and the absence of reasonable grounds to believe the applicant would not commit further offences if released.
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 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 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.
Insufficient prima facie evidence to link the applicant to organized crime syndicate warrants bail under MCOCA's stringent conditions.
The court ruled that the applicant's involvement in organized crime and conspiracy to commit murder, supported by substantial evidence, justified the rejection of bail under the MCOC Act.
MCOCA Section 21(4) bail denied only if reasonable grounds beyond prima facie establish guilt; calls, photos, unlinked deposits insufficient absent confession mention or proven syndicate nexus.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sufficient evidence to establish guilt, the interpretation of bail requirements under MCOCA, and the consideration of the appell....
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
