Suman @ Pankaj Sharma vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Suman alias Pankaj Sharma, in Case Crime No. 450 of 2016 (GST No. 41 of 2017), under Section 2/3 of the UP Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The applicant is to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Specific conditions were imposed, including that the applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, shall cooperate in the trial sincerely, and shall not indulge in any criminal activity after release. The Court clarified that the observations made are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and do not reflect on the ultimate merits of the case. The court below is at liberty to proceed for cancellation of bail in case of breach of conditions. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the primary issue was the grant of bail.

Facts

This is a bail application filed by Suman @ Pankaj Sharma (the applicant) in a case registered under the UP Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant is accused in Case Crime No. 450 of 2016, which also involves GST No. 41 of 2017. The applicant has been in jail since April 29, 2016. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is innocent, falsely implicated, and has only one prior case where he is already on bail. It was also contended that there is no evidence of pecuniary gain or acquisition of property through alleged gangster activities, and the Act is being used to harass the applicant. The State, through the learned Additional Government Advocate, opposed the bail, arguing that the applicant is a habitual offender and a gang member who might indulge in similar activities and threaten witnesses if released.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the UP Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated. They contended that only one case is registered against the applicant, in which he is already on bail. Further, there is no material on record to show that the applicant gained any undue advantage or acquired any property through alleged gangster activities. The applicant's counsel also argued that the provisions of the Act are being misused to harass the applicant, and there is no risk of him absconding or tampering with evidence. Finally, it was submitted that the applicant is not a previous convict and will not misuse liberty if granted bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail prayer, asserting that the applicant is a member of a gang and a habitual offender. The State argued that if released, the applicant would indulge in similar anti-social activities and might threaten prosecution witnesses.