CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Anil Singh alias Dau vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 9 April 2008 · Citation: (2008) 2 ACR 2035

HON’BLE JUDGES
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — Section 3(1)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M.B.A. No. 29305 of 2007
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 349 words

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—Applicant accused Anil Singh alias Dau is charged u/s 3(1) of U.P. Gangster Act and wants bail in this offence because his bail application was rejected by Special Judge (Gangster Act) Kanpur Nagar.

2.

Heard Sri K. D. Tiwari and Sri Rakesh Dubey, advocates for the applicant and Sri N. D. Rai, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

3.

As regards the offence under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, it has to be noticed that Section 19(4) provides as follows:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless....

(a) ....

(b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

4.

Bail should, therefore, be granted only where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. The arguments from the side of the accused was that in other cases which have proceeded against the accused, he has been enlarged on bail and that he is in detention for the last six months, that alone will not provide reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence.

5.

The first information report against the accused explicitly mentions that he is the leader of a gang of 11 persons who indulge in anti social activities and he has created terror in the area and no one is prepared to give evidence against him, because of fear and reprisal.

6.

It is, therefore, very likely that if granted bail, the accused will resume nefarious activities and aforenoted provisions of Gangster Act provide that a Court should not grant bail, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is likely to commit any offence while on bail. Bail should, therefore, not be granted.

7.

Bail refused. Bail application rejected.