Shyam Singh vs. State Of U.P.

Facts

The applicant, Shyam Singh, sought bail in connection with GST No. 59 of 2002, arising from Case Crime No. 395/2001, under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act. The applicant had been on bail but failed to appear before the trial court from June 26, 2008, onwards, reportedly due to seeking livelihood in Punjab. A non-bailable warrant was issued, which came to the applicant's knowledge in 2017, leading to his surrender on April 21, 2017. The applicant's counsel argued that he is innocent, falsely implicated, has no earning male members in his family, and his family faces starvation. The applicant has no prior convictions and is unlikely to abscond or tamper with evidence. He has been in jail since April 21, 2017.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Shyam Singh, in GST No. 59 of 2002, arising out of Case Crime No. 395/2001, under Section 2/3 Gangster Act. The Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, found it to be a fit case for bail without commenting on the merits of the case. The decision was based on considering the complicity of the accused, the severity of the punishment, and the totality of the facts and circumstances. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of the magistrate/court concerned. Specific conditions were imposed, including not tampering with prosecution evidence, not harming or harassing the victim/complainant, abiding by court orders, attending court on every date, not delaying the trial, not indulging in unlawful activities, and not misusing the liberty of bail. The court also stipulated that the identity and residential proof of sureties would be verified, and any breach of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in GST No. 59 of 2002, arising out of Case Crime No. 395/2001, under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He highlighted the applicant's previous compliance with bail conditions until he left for Punjab for his family's livelihood. The counsel emphasized the dire financial situation of the applicant's family, the applicant's surrender upon learning of the warrant, and the absence of any prior convictions or risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. The applicant's prolonged incarceration since April 21, 2017, and the potential for misuse of bail were also addressed. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.