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
7 paragraphs · 347 wordsNaheed Ara Moonis, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Admit.
Summon the lower court record.
A prayer for bail has been made in this criminal appeal, which has been filed against a judgment and order dated 30.3.2011, passed by Special Judge (Gangsters Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Moradabad in S.S.T. No. 139 of 2010 State v. Liyaqat and Ors., arising out of Case Crime No. 1158 of 2009, u/s 3(1) U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Tanda, District Rampur, convicting and sentencing the Appellants, whereby convicting and sentencing the Appellants for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, with default stipulation.
It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Appellants have been prosecuted under the Gangsters Act on the basis of a case registered u/s 302 IPC as case crime No. 676 of 2009, in which they are in jail and the trial is still pending. The trial court has decided the case under the Gangsters Act and convicted them for three years rigorous imprisonment.
Per contra the learned AGA opposed the prayer of bail of the Appellants and supported the judgment of the trial court.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Appellants as well as the learned AGA and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the prayer for bail of the Appellants is allowed.
Let the Appellants, Liyaqat, Riyasat, Faeem and Saleem, convicted and sentenced in S.S.T. No. 139 of 2010, State v. Liyaqat and Ors., arising out of case crime No. 1158 of 2009, u/s 3(1) U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. 1986, P.S. Tanda, District Rampur, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. In the event of depositing 50% of the fine, the balance 50% amount shall remain stayed.