Pramod Yadav @ Minna vs. State Of U.P.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Pramod Yadav @ Minna under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicant seeks release in connection with GST No. 588 of 2012, arising from Case Crime No. 439 of 1997, registered under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, at Police Station North, District Firozabad. The applicant has been in jail since October 14, 2024. The prosecution has not pointed out any other cases against the applicant beyond those presented by the defense.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. It found the case to be a fit case for bail, taking into consideration the totality of facts, the nature of the evidence reflected from the record, and the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties. Specific conditions were imposed, including not to induce, threaten, or promise any person to dissuade them from disclosing facts, not to pressurize or intimidate prosecution witnesses, to remain present before the trial court on specified dates (opening of the case, framing of charge, recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.), and to file an undertaking not to seek adjournment when witnesses are present. The trial court was clarified to be free to arrive at independent conclusions unaffected by the bail order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with the alleged offences under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Act. Contentions of the Petitioner: The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated with ulterior motives. The cases against him have been explained, and he is not a member, leader, or organizer of a gang, nor has he abetted gang activities as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act. He has no criminal history except for the present case. There is no likelihood of him fleeing or tampering with evidence. Given the heavy pendency of cases, an early conclusion of the trial is unlikely. Contentions of the Revenue/State: The learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but did not present any additional cases against the applicant.