# Deepak Sharma v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 270
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-06-09
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 16781 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-47045
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

evidence, the period of detention already
undergone,
the
unlikelihood
of
early
conclusion of trial and also the absence of
any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence,
the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
(Para 8)
Application Allowed. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Governing Body of Nalanda College, Bihar
Sharif, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1210, it
has been held that a writ of mandamus can
be issued only if the petitioner has a legal
right to enforce and the performance of a
legal duty which has been cast upon the
respondents.

32. This Court finds no factual or
legal infirmity in the orders impugned. The
petitioner's claim if acceded to would lead
to fragmentation, instead of consolidation
of holdings, and would be against the very
object of the Act which is to create
compact holdings of lesser number than
originally possessed by the proprietors.

33. The writ petition is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2021)06ILR A270
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 16781 of 2021

Deepak Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Manvendra Narain Pathak

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A.

(a) Bail - In view of the nature of
evidence, the period of detention already
undergone,
the
unlikelihood
of
early
conclusion of trial and also the absence of
any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence,
the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
(Para 8)
Application Allowed. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dataram Singh Vs St.of U.P. & anr. (2018) 3
SCC 22

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant as well as learned A.G.A.
appearing for the State and perused the
record.

2. This application has been filed
seeking the release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 252 of 2020,
under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986, Police Station Lar, District Deoria.

3.

The
chief
plank
of
the
submissions made on behalf of accused is
that in all cases which have been made
the basis to impose the provisions of
Gangster Act against the accused, he has
already been granted bail by the Court.
Contention is that the provisions of the
Act have been ill-used by the Police in
order to perpetuate the detention of the
applicant in jail anyhow even though the
offence under the aforesaid Act is not
made
out.
Submission
is
that
the
applicant is not a gangster and has never
acted or conducted himself as such.
Counsel for the applicant has also tried to
demonstrate that the alleged previous
offences which are said to have been
committed by the applicant can at the
most be said to be stray incident of
breach of law having no nexus with the
definition of a gangster as has been
provided in the Act.

4. Further submission is that as it
has been mentioned in paragraph 9 of the
6 All. Deepak Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
271
affidavit filed in support of the bail
application that the applicant has already
been released on bail in all the cases on
the basis of which the provisions of the
Act were imposed, it shall not be much
justified to continue the incarceration of
the applicant. Submission is also that the
applicant
is
not
guilty
of
having
committed
any
offence
under
the
Gangster Act. It has also been pointed out
that
the
accused
is
in
jail
since
14.10.2020 and that in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the Court, there is
no likelihood of any early conclusion of
trial.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
prayer for bail but could not dispute the
fact of applicant having been released on
bail in all the criminal cases which have
been shown to be the basis of imposing
the provisions of the Act.

6. After perusing the record in the
light of the submissions made at the bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case, the
nature
of
evidence,
the
period
of
detention
already
undergone,
the
unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial
and also in the absence of any convincing
material to indicate the possibility of
tampering with the evidence and larger
mandate of the Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP
and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court
is of the view that the applicant may be
enlarged on bail.

7. Let the applicant- Deepak
Sharma, involved in Case Crime No. 252
of 2020, under Section 3(1) of U.P.
Gangster and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station
Lar, District Deoria, be released on bail
on his executing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned on the
following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any
attempt to tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally
appear on each and every date fixed in
the court below and his personal presence
shall not be exempted unless the court
itself deems it fit to do so in the interest
of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in
the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in
any criminal activity or commission of
any crime after being released on bail.

(5)The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from
the
Registry
of
the
High
Court,
Allahabad.

(6)
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy
of the order from the official website of
High Court Allahabad and shall make a
declaration of such verification in writing

8. It may be observed that in the
event of any breach of the aforesaid
conditions, the court below shall be at
liberty to proceed for the cancellation of
applicant's bail.

9.

It
is
clarified
that
the
observations, if any, made in this order
are strictly confined to the disposal of the
bail
application
and
must
not
be
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
construed to have any reflection on the
ultimate merits of the case.
----------
(2021)06ILR A272
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Service Single No. 3458 of 2009
Along with other cases

U.P. Senior Basic Shiksha Sangh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
C.B. Pandey, Dr. Lalta Prasad Mishra, Girish
Chandra Verma, Rohit Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Service Law - U.P. Basic Education Act,
1972, Section 19 - U.P. Recognized Basic
Schools (Recruitment and Condition of
Service of Teachers and other Conditions)
Rules,
1975-
U.P.
Recognized
Basic
Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules (1978) , R.19 - U.P.
Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High
Schools) (Recruitment And Conditions Of
Service Of Ministerial Staff And Group 'D'
Employees) Rules, 1984 - Old Pension
Scheme (OPS), New Pension Scheme
(NPS) - Claim for pensionary benefits
under old scheme - Petitioners appointed
much prior to enforcement of NPS w.e.f
01.04.2005 - Held - Merely because the
institution was brought within purview of
payment of salaries act vide notification
issued on 02.12.2006 i.e. after cut off date
of enforcement of applicability of NPS
cannot be a ground for depriving the
teachers and non teaching staff to be
covered under old pension scheme (OPS)
(60, 71)
Management directed to deposit the manager's
contribution with interest for counting of service
rendered in the institution prior to taking of
institution on grant in aid list - respondents
directed to treat the petitioners to be covered
under Old Pension Scheme and to pay pension
to the retired teaching and non teaching staff
accordingly (Para 73)

Allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:

1. Budhiram Vs St. of U.P. & ors. CMWP
No.45217 of 2012 dt. 26.09.2012

2. U.P. Senior Basic Shikshak Sangh Sindhi
Vidyalaya Vs. St. of U.P. & ors. S.A. No.123 of
2013

3. Shailendra Daina & ors. Vs S.P. Dubey & ors.
2007 (5) SCC 535

4. N. Suresh Nathan & anr. Vs. U.O.I. & ors.
1992 Supp. (1) Scc 584

5. Rajinder Singh (Dr.) Vs. St. of Pun. & ors.
2001 (2) UPLBEC 1502

6. Shyam Sadan Singh (Dr.) Vs. Chancellor,
DDU University of Gorakhpur & ors. 2002 (1)
UPLBEC 152

7. Girdhari Lal Shankwar Vs. St. of U.P. & ors.
2014 (1) UPLBEC 657

8. Narinder S. Chadha & ors. Vs. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai & ors. 2015 (33)
LCD 1743

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

(1) Heard Sri L.P. Misra, learned
counsel assisted by Sri G.C. Verma, Sri
Vinay Mishra, Sri Pt. S. Chandra, Sri Hari
Prakash Yadav and Sri K.M. Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Alok Sharma, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the respondent State,
Sri Ajay Kumar, Sri Neeraj Chaurasiya, Sri
Vindhyawasini Kumar, Sri Prashant Arora,