Shakeel Alias Bhima v. State of U.P
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 15 May 2025
- Bench
- RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA
- Neutral citation
- 2025:AHC:80647
Outcome
Bail granted
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record as well as taking note of Section 19(4) (b) of the Gangsters Act, in light of the submission of counsel for the applicant to the effect that while on bail in…
Judgment
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the gang chart, eight cases are shown against the applicant and in the said cases the applicant has been enlarged on bail. Bail orders have been annexed with the supplementary affidavit. It is next contended that apart from the cases mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant is involved in 7 other cases which has been explained in para-3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 12.08.2024. It is next submitted that co-accused Surendra Yadav, Javed, Wakib @ Wakif, Arshad @ Bahuda, Rakesh Raka, Meraj have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 28.07.2023, 07.08.2023, 09.04.2024, 06.09.2023, 19.09.2023 and 11.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.31999 of 2023, 34592 of 2023, 9087 of 2024, 39078 of 2023, 32671 of 2023 and 33919 of 2023 respectively.
He further submits that in the F.I.R., in issue, the allegations with regard to disturbing the public order, as also regarding gaining undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage of like nature, against the applicant are vague. In absence of allegation concerning an act or omission on the part of an accused, covered by the definition of terms "gang" and "gangster" as provided under Section 2 of the Gangsters Act, no F.I.R. is maintainable. In the instant case, the F.I.R. is based upon the pending criminal cases and not upon any new allegations or discovery of facts having serious reflection on the society, for which purpose the Gangsters Act was enacted.
It is also submitted that considering the facts of the case, as stated above, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence under the Gangsters Act and that he would not commit the offence while on bail nor would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be. The applicant is in jail since 22.02.2023.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
Operative part
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record as well as taking note of Section 19(4) (b) of the Gangsters Act, in light of the submission of counsel for the applicant to the effect that while on bail in this case the applicant would not commit any crime/offence nor would try to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner, whatsoever it may be, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Shakeel Alias Bhima, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and, (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Asha ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the bail application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — s. 3(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 15 May 2025. The bench was RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.