# Ramesh Rai @ Matru Rai (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 685
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46497 of 2022
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-rai-matru-rai-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-47971
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Gangsters bail - The
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section
3
(1)
-
Penalty,
Section
19
(4)
-
opportunity to the public prosecutor to
oppose the application for release of a
person on bail - no provision giving such
right to any person other than the Public
Prosecutor , The Uttar Pradesh Regulation
of Money-Lending Act, 1976 - Sections 10
(i), 10 (ii), 22 and 23 , Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 448, 386, 504, 506, 420,
120-B, 34 - unless an allegation is there
concerning an act or omission on the part
of an accused, covered by the definition of
the term "gang" or "gangster", no F.I.R.
should be maintainable - Whether the
allegations are true or false will be a
matter for investigation, but unless the
allegations of an offence under the Act are
indicated, as F.I.R. may not be justifiable
whatever large the number of past acts be
alleged against him. (Para -6,32)

Application - seeking release of applicant on bail
- allegation - member of a gang - engaged in
commission of several offences - gang-chart -
terror of gang - no person comes forward to
lodge a complaint - informant not only filed an
F.I.R. against applicant - even come to oppose
bail application of applicant in present case -
applicant implicated in present case merely
because he has a criminal history - applicant
languishing in jail. (Para -19,33,34)

(B) Criminal Law - The Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 - for booking a
person under the provisions of the Act, the
authorities have to be prima facie satisfied
that a person has acted - Provisions of the
Act cannot be used as a weapon to wreak
vengeance
or
harass
or
intimidate
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
innocent citizens or to settle scores on
political or other fronts . (Para - 31)

HELD:-No reasonable ground for prima facie
believing that applicant is guilty of offence
alleged. Granted bail in all cases mentioned in
Gang-chart. Applicant entitled to claim his
release on bail on ground of parity. (Para -
35,38,39)

Bail application allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

12 All. Ramesh Rai @ Matru Rai Vs. State of U.P.
685
interest of the victim/accuser has also to be
taken into consideration as of late even the
role of the victim has been accorded a
wider view in light of the amendment in the
Cr.P.C. by adding the definition of victim
u/s 2(wa).

22. Considering the rival submissions
adduced by the learned counsel for the
parties, the facts of the case, evidence
adduced and also considering the nature of
offence, I do not find it a fit case for
granting bail to the applicant.

23. Accordingly, the application is
found devoid of merits and is dismissed.

24. The Trial Court is expected to
expedite the trial of the case and conclude
it in accordance with law, preferably within
a period of one year from the date of this
order, if there is no other legal impediment.

25. It is also made clear that
observations made in dismissing the bail to
the applicant shall not in any way affect the
learned
trial
Judge
in
forming
his
independent
opinion
based
on
the
testimony of the witnesses and evidence on
record.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 685
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46497 of
2022

Ramesh Rai @ Matru Rai
 ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ran Vijay Singh, Sri Atharva Dixit, Sri
Praveen Kumar Singh, Sri Manish Tiwari
(Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Sri Ajay Singh

(A) Criminal Law - Gangsters bail - The
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section
3
(1)
-
Penalty,
Section
19
(4)
-
opportunity to the public prosecutor to
oppose the application for release of a
person on bail - no provision giving such
right to any person other than the Public
Prosecutor , The Uttar Pradesh Regulation
of Money-Lending Act, 1976 - Sections 10
(i), 10 (ii), 22 and 23 , Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 448, 386, 504, 506, 420,
120-B, 34 - unless an allegation is there
concerning an act or omission on the part
of an accused, covered by the definition of
the term "gang" or "gangster", no F.I.R.
should be maintainable - Whether the
allegations are true or false will be a
matter for investigation, but unless the
allegations of an offence under the Act are
indicated, as F.I.R. may not be justifiable
whatever large the number of past acts be
alleged against him. (Para -6,32)

Application - seeking release of applicant on bail
- allegation - member of a gang - engaged in
commission of several offences - gang-chart -
terror of gang - no person comes forward to
lodge a complaint - informant not only filed an
F.I.R. against applicant - even come to oppose
bail application of applicant in present case -
applicant implicated in present case merely
because he has a criminal history - applicant
languishing in jail. (Para -19,33,34)

(B) Criminal Law - The Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 - for booking a
person under the provisions of the Act, the
authorities have to be prima facie satisfied
that a person has acted - Provisions of the
Act cannot be used as a weapon to wreak
vengeance
or
harass
or
intimidate
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
innocent citizens or to settle scores on
political or other fronts . (Para - 31)

HELD:-No reasonable ground for prima facie
believing that applicant is guilty of offence
alleged. Granted bail in all cases mentioned in
Gang-chart. Applicant entitled to claim his
release on bail on ground of parity. (Para -
35,38,39)

Bail application allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Jagjeet Singh Vs Ashish Mishra @ Monu,
(2022) 9 SCC 321

2. Zeba Rizwan Vs St. of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine
All 352 : (2022) 4 All LJ 175

3. Sudha Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 781

4. Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs St. of U. P. , AIR 1987
All 235

5. Subhash Vs St. of U.P., 1998 All.L.J. 4870 :
1998 SCC OnLine All 973

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri Praveen Kumar
Singh Advocate, the learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, the
learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ajay
Singh Advocate, the learned counsel for the
informant / victim in Case Crime No. 74 of
2022.

2. The instant application has been
filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2022, under
Section 3 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986
(which
will
hereinafter be referred to as ''the Gangsters
Act), Police Station Chetganj, District
Varanasi. A copy of the Gang-chart
accompanying
the
F.I.R.
mentions
involvement of the applicant in four cases,
one of which is Case Crime No. 74 of 2022
under Sections 448, 386, 504, 506, 420,
120-B, 34 IPC and Sections 10 (i), 10 (ii),
22 and 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation
of Money-Lending Act, 1976, Police
Station
Chetganj,
Commissionerate
Varanasi.

3. Sri Ajay Singh, Advocate has put
in appearance on behalf of the informant of
Case Crime No. 74 of 2022 and he has
sought to oppose the bail application.

4. Sri. Manish Tiwari Senior
Advocate has opposed the intervention of
the informant of Case Crime No. 74 of
2022 in the present case, i.e. Case Crime
No. 126 of 2022 and he has submitted that
the informant of Case Crime No. 74 of
2022 does not fall within the definition of
victim of the present case and, therefore, he
has no right to oppose the prayer for grant
of bail to the applicant in the present case.
He has further submitted that the Gangsters
Act is a special enactment having an
overriding effect on any other law, as
provided by Section 20 of the Act, which is
as follows: -

"20. Overriding effect. - The
provisions of this Act or any rule made
thereunder
shall
have
effect
notwithstanding
anything
inconsistent
therewith
contained
in
any
other
enactment."

5. The provision for grant of bail to a
person accused of an offence under the
Gangsters is provided in Section 19 of the
Act, the relevant portion whereof is as
follows: -

"19. Modified application of
certain provisions of the Code. -
12 All. Ramesh Rai @ Matru Rai Vs. State of U.P.
687
* * *

(4)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in the Code, no person accused
of an offence punishable under this Act or
any rule made thereunder shall, if in
custody, be released on bail or on his own
bond unless :

(a) the Public Prosecutor has
been given an opportunity to oppose the
application for such release, and

(b) where the Public Prosecutor
opposes the application, the Court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that he is not guilty of such
offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail.

(5) The limitations on granting of
bail specified in sub-section (4) are in
addition to the limitations under the Code."

6. Section 19 (4) contains a provision
for giving an opportunity to the public
prosecutor to oppose the application for
release of a person on bail but there is no
provision giving such right to any person
other than the Public Prosecutor.

7. Replying to the aforesaid objection,
Sri Ajay Singh has stated that although the
present case has been registered on the
basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the Inspector
In-charge, the F.I.R. mentions that the
applicant is involved in commission of
several offences, one of which being Case
Crime No. 74 of 2022. He has further
submitted that since Case Crime No. 74 of
2022 forms the basis for lodging of the
present case, the victim of Case Crime No.
74 of 2022 is also a victim of the present
case.

8. Sri Ajay Singh, Advocate has
placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh Vs. Ashish
Mishra @ Monu (2022) 9 SCC 321.

9. I have given a thoughtful
consideration to the aforesaid submissions
made on behalf of the parties.

10. The question whether a victim of
a predicate offence can claim a right of
hearing to oppose the bail application of a
person accused under the Gangsters Act
has been dealt with by a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Zeba Rizwan versus State
of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 352 : (2022)
4 All LJ 175. It would be appropriate to
note the following submissions which
raised in the aforesaid case: -

"8. Learned counsel has relied on
the judgment of the Supreme Court passed
in Jagjeet
Singh v. Ashish
Mishra
@
Monu (2022) 9 SCC 321, wherein it has
been stated that a ''victim' within the
meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to
await the commencement of trial for
asserting his/her right to participate in the
proceedings.

9. Learned counsel has further
relied on the judgment of the Supreme
Court passed in Sudha Singh v. State of
Uttar Pradesh (2021) 4 SCC 781, wherein
it has been opined that the accused person,
who has been prosecuted in fifteen cases
for serious offences including murder,
attempt to murder and criminal conspiracy,
should not have been granted bail under
the
U.P.
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and the
said bail was set aside by the Supreme
Court."
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11.

While
dealing
with
the
submissions, this Court held that: -

"15. If the said victims of the
predicate offence are permitted to appear
and oppose the bail applications in the
matters of Gangsters Act, it shall open a
Pandora's box and prove hurdle in proper
disposal of the case.

* * *

22. Of
late,
the
criminal
jurisprudence has developed that the victim
is being accorded proper opportunity of
being heard not only at the various stages
of trial and even at the stage of disposal of
bail. But the story herein is a bit different.
The matter in question is under Section
3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and not
under the IPC or any other Special Act and
the complainant of the said case is the
S.H.O. of the police station. So the counsel
for the victim of the predicate offence i.e.
FIR No. 002 of 2022 does not come within
the category of "victim" pertaining to the
present case. Inspite of the provisions
discussed above, the counsel for victim in
the offence u/s 302 IPC has been heard at
length."

12. What appears from a reading of
the aforesaid judgment, is that although
Jagjeet Singh and Sudha Singh (Supra)
were taken note of, the Court has held that
the victim of a predicate offence cannot be
treated to be a victim of an offence under
the Gangsters Act and doing so will open a
pandora's box and it will create hurdles in
disposal of cases.

13. In Jagjeet Singh (Supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to
hold as follows: -

"19. On the domestic front, recent
amendments
to
the
Cr.P.C.
have
recognised a victim's rights in the Indian
criminal justice system. The genesis of such
rights lies in the 154th Report of the Law
Commission of India, wherein, radical
recommendations
on
the
aspect
of
compensatory justice to a victim under a
compensation
scheme
were
made.
Thereafter, a Committee on the Reforms of
Criminal Justice System in its Report in
2003, suggested ways and means to
develop a cohesive system in which all
parts are to work in coordination to
achieve the common goal of restoring the
lost confidence of the people in the criminal
justice
system.
The
Committee
recommended the rights of the victim or
his/her
legal
representative
"to
be
impleaded as a party in every criminal
proceeding where the charges punishable
with seven years' imprisonment or more".

20. It was further recommended
that the victim be armed with a right to be
represented by an advocate of his/her
choice, and if he/she is not in a position to
afford the same, to provide an advocate at
the State's expense. The victim's right to
participate in criminal trial and his/her
right to know the status of investigation,
and take necessary steps, or to be heard at
every crucial stage of the criminal
proceedings, including at the time of grant
or cancellation of bail, were also duly
recognised by the Committee. Repeated
judicial intervention, coupled with the
recommendations made from time to time
as briefly noticed above, prompted the
Parliament to bring into force the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act,
2008, which not only inserted the definition
of a ''victim' under Section 2 (wa) but also
statutorily recognised various rights of
such victims at different stages of trial.
12 All. Ramesh Rai @ Matru Rai Vs. State of U.P.
689

21. It is pertinent to mention that
the legislature has thoughtfully given a
wide and expansive meaning to the
expression ''victim' which "means a person
who has suffered any loss or injury caused
by reason of the act or omission for which
the accused person has been charged and
the expression "victim" includes his or
her guardian or legal heir".

22. It cannot be gainsaid that the
rights of a victim under the amended CrPC
are substantive, enforceable, and are
another facet of human rights. The victim's
right, therefore, cannot be termed or
construed
restrictively
like
a brutum
fulmen. We reiterate that these rights are
totally independent, incomparable, and are
not accessory or auxiliary to those of the
State under the CrPC. The presence of
"State" in the proceedings, therefore, does
not tantamount to according a hearing to a
"victim" of the crime.

23. A
"victim"
within
the
meaning of CrPC cannot be asked to
await the commencement of trial for
asserting his/her right to participate in the
proceedings. He/She has a legally vested
right to be heard at every step post the
occurrence of an offence. Such a "victim"
has unbridled participatory rights from
the
stage
of
investigation
till
the
culmination of the proceedings in an
appeal or revision. We may hasten to
clarify
that
"victim"
and
"complainant/informant" are two distinct
connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It
is
not
always
necessary
that
the
complainant/informant is also a "victim",
for even a stranger to the act of crime can
be an "informant", and similarly, a
"victim" need not be the complainant or
informant of a felony."

24. The abovestated enunciations
are not to be conflated with certain
statutory provisions, such as those present
in the Special Acts like the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, where there is a legal
obligation to hear the victim at the time of
granting bail. Instead, what must be taken
note of is that:

24.1.First,
the
Indian
jurisprudence
is
constantly
evolving,
whereby, the right of victims to be heard,
especially in cases involving heinous
crimes,
is
increasingly
being
acknowledged.

24.2.Second, where the victims
themselves
have
come
forward
to
participate in a criminal proceeding, they
must be accorded with an opportunity of a
fair and effective hearing. If the right to
file an appeal against acquittal, is not
accompanied with the right to be heard at
the time of deciding a bail application, the
same may result in grave miscarriage of
justice.
Victims
certainly
cannot
be
expected to be sitting on the fence and
watching the proceedings from afar,
especially when they may have legitimate
grievances. It is the solemn duty of a court
to deliver justice before the memory of an
injustice eclipses."

(Emphasis supplied)

14. In Sudha Singh v. State of U.P.,
(2021) 4 SCC 781, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court entertained and allowed an appeal
filed by the wife of a person, who had been
allegedly murdered by the accused, against
an order of this Court granting bail to the
accused in a case involving commission of
offence punishable under Section 3(1) of
the Gangsters Act.
690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. From the aforesaid discussion, it
naturally follows that the term "victim"
cannot be taken to be a synonym of the
terms "complainant" or "informant" and
"victim" need not be the complainant or
informant of an offence. If a victim of a
predicate
offence
can
file
appeal
challenging an order granting bail in an
offence under the Gangsters Act, he
certainly has the right to have an
opportunity to oppose the application for
grant of bail in an offence under the Act
and for that purpose, he will have to be
treated as a victim of the offence under the
Gangsters Act. Where the victim of a
predicate offence has come forward to
participate in the proceeding by making
submissions in opposition of a bail
application,
he
must
be
given
an
opportunity of hearing.

16. It appears that although Jagjeet
Singh and Sudha Singh (Supra) have been
taken note of by the Bench deciding Zeba
Rizwan (Supra), the true purport of the
aforesaid judgments has somehow escaped
attention of this Court and, therefore, which
utmost respect to the co-ordinate bench
which decided Zeba Rizwan, I find myself
unable to follow the law laid down in it, as
it runs contrary to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
cases.

17. Since the F.I.R. of the present
case mentions Case Crime No. 74 of 2022
as one of the predicate offences forming
basis of lodging of the present F.I.R., and
the informant claims to be a victim of the
aforesaid predicate offence, he has to be
treated as a victim of the present offence
and he has the right to make submissions in
opposition of the bail application. It is
interesting to note that even in Zeba
Rizwan (Supra), after holding that the
victim of a predicate offence was not the
victim of the offence under the Gangsters
Act, the Court provided him an opportunity
of hearing before deciding the bail
application.

18. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the objection raised on behalf of
the applicant is hereby rejected and the
Court proceeds to decide the application on
its merits after taking into consideration the
submissions made by the learned Counsel
for the informant in Case Crime No. 74 of
2022 in opposition of the bail application.

19. The allegation against the
applicant is that he is a member of a gang,
which is engaged in commission of several
offences, and the gang-chart mentions
involvement of the applicant in the
following offence:

(i) Case Crime No. 72/2022 under
Sections 386, 504, 506, 420, 120-B, 34 IPC
and Sections 10 (i), 10 (ii), 22 and 23 of the
Uttar Pradesh Regulation of MoneyLending
Act,
1976,
Police
Station
Chetganj, Commissionerate Varanasi

(ii) Case Crime No. 74 of 2022
under Sections 448, 386, 504, 506, 420,
120-B, 34 IPC and Sections 10 (i), 10 (ii),
22 and 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation
of Money-Lending Act, 1976, Police
Station
Chetganj,
Commissionerate
Varanasi

(iii) Case Crime No. 111 of 2021
under Sections 379, 506, 411 IPC, Police
Station
Chetganj,
Commissionerate
Varanasi

(iv) Case Crime No. 1099 of
2018 under Sections 504, 506 IPC, Police
Station Cantt. Varanasi
12 All. Ramesh Rai @ Matru Rai Vs. State of U.P.
691

20. Case Crime No. 74 of 2022 was
lodged on the basis of F.I.R. alleging that the
informant's father had started business of
Sarees in the year 1982-83. For meeting his
business requirements, he had taken a loan of
Rs.25,00,000/- from the co-accused Kashi
Singh and he had executed an agreement on
21.11.2006 surrendering one of his shops in
favour of wife of Kashi Singh. It was alleged
in the F.I.R. that after taking the loan, the
informant's father came to know that the
accused persons are members of a gang
involved in earning interest and committing
crimes and, therefore, he refunded the money,
yet Kashi Singh and others continued to
extract money from him and they got the
informant's flat transferred in the name of
wife of Kashi Singh and in the year 2016, the
accused person took possession of another
shop belonging to the informant. The F.I.R.
alleges that the informant and his father have
paid about 70-80 lakhs Rupees and they have
got written acknowledgment from Kashi
Singh and the applicant in respect of some of
the amount paid.

21. As per the F.I.R. allegations, the
informant's father had taken a loan of
Rs.25,00,000/- from the co-accused Kashi
Singh and an agreement was executed on a
stamp paper and the sale deed of the flat was
executed in favour of wife of Kashi Nath. The
informant claims that he and his father have
repaid about 70-80 lakhs and they have written
acknowledgment in respect of some of the
amount paid, but the exact amount repaid by
them and exact amount for which they have
written
acknowledgments
has
not
been
disclosed. Considering the facts of the case, the
learned Session Judge, Varanasi has passed an
order dated 14.09.2022 ordering the applicant's
release on bail in Case Crime No. 74 of 2022.

22. In two of the three other cases
mentioned in the gang-chart, namely Case
Crime No. 72/2022 and Case Crime No.
1099 of 2018, the applicant has already
been granted bail by the Session Judge
Varanasi and in Case Crime No. 111 of
2021 the applicant has been granted bail by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

23. A supplementary affidavit filed in
support of the bail application mentions the
criminal history of the applicant of eleven
more cases, in four of which, the applicant
has already been acquitted, a Complaint
Case No. 93 of 2014 under Sections 420,
506 IPC has been rejected under Section
203 Cr.P.C., in two cases bearing Case
Crime No. 208 of 2019 under Sections 341,
504, 506 IPC and Case Crime No. 990 of
2020 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506
IPC, the Police has submitted final reports
which have been accepted by the Trial
Court.

24. In the remaining four cases, the
applicant has been granted bail and copies
of the bail orders have been annexed with
the supplementary affidavit.

25. Co-accused Kashi Nath Singh has
already been granted bail in the present
case by means of an order dated 03-112022 passed by this Court in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 45869 of 2022.
The other co-accused person Prem Shankar
Singh @ Meethe has also been granted bail
by means of an order dated 21-10-2022
passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 45765 of 2022.

26. Sri. Arun Kumar Pandey, the
learned
AGA
and
Sri.
Ajay
Singh
Advocate, the learned Counsel for the
victim have opposed the prayer for grant of
bail and they have submitted that the
allegations against the applicant are of
serious nature. However, they could not
692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter
and the fact that both the other co-accused
persons have already been granted bail.

27. Case Crime No. 126 of 2022,
under Section 3 (1) of the Gangsters Act, in
which the applicant is seeking bail, has
been registered by means of an F.I.R. dated
27.08.2022 lodged by the Inspector incharge
against
three
named
accused
persons, including the applicant, alleging
that while the Inspector was involved in
patrolling of the area in Government
Vehicle No. UP 65 AG 0845 alongwith a
Head Constable, three Constables and the
Chauki In-charge Sub-Inspector Angad
Kumar Singh, from the record available in
the Police Station and verification of the
information received, he found that all the
accused persons have formed an organized
gang which is led by the applicant and they
are engaged in commission of offences like
illegal interest earning, money lending,
extortion etc. The FIR further alleges that
because of the fear of the offences
committed by the gang, no person dares to
lodge a complaint or give evidence against
it. It is further averred in the F.I.R. that a
Gang-chart prepared for preventing the
criminal activities of the members of the
gang has already been approved by the
Commissioner of Police, Varanasi.

28. A copy of the Gang-chart
accompanying the F.I.R. indicates that it
mentions three persons as the members of the
gang - (i) Ramesh Rai - the applicant, (ii)
Kashi Nath Singh and (iii) Premshankar
Singh
alias
Meethe.
The
Gang-chart
mentions involvement of the applicant in four
cases. The Gang-chart appears to have been
prepared by the Inspector In-charge on 1808-2022 and after having been forwarded by
various officers, ultimately it was forwarded
by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on
27-08-2022 and thereafter it was approved by
the Commissioner of Police, Varanasi.

29. The Inspector-in-charge, who
himself had prepared and forwarded the
Gang-chart on 18-08-2022, states in the
F.I.R. lodged by himself on 27-08-2022 that
while he was involved in patrolling of the
area in Government Vehicle No. UP 65 AG
0845 alongwith a Head Constable, three
Constables and the Chauki In-charge SubInspector Angad Kumar Singh, from the
record available in the Police Station and
verification of the information received, he
found that all the accused persons have
formed an organized gang which is led by the
applicant
and
they
are
engaged
into
commission of offences like illegal interest
earning, money lending, extortion etc., and a
bare reading of this narration indicates that
the F.I.R. has been lodged in a mechanical
manner, on a stereotyped proforma, without
application of mind to the facts of the
individual case.

30. Sri. Manish Tiwari Senior Advocate
has submitted that a perusal of the narration
made in the F.I.R. indicates that the applicant
has been implicated in the present case solely
on the basis of perusal of records available
with the police, and that too, during patrolling
in a jeep, which prima facie indicates that the
applicant has been implicated by the police
without any material against him to establish
that he is a gangster.

31. In Ashok Kumar Dixit versus
State of U. P. AIR 1987 All 235, while
upholding the constitutional validity of the
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, a Full
Bench of this Court held that: -

"73....If we advert to Section 2(b)
of the Act, which defines the term
12 All. Ramesh Rai @ Matru Rai Vs. State of U.P.
693
''gangster' we would find significant words.
They are "acting", ''singly or collectively',
''violence
or
show
of
violence',
''intimidation', ''coercion', or ''unlawful
means'. Thus, for booking a person under
the provisions of the Act, the authorities
have to be prima facie satisfied that a
person has acted. The authority has to be
satisfied that there is a reasonable and
proximate
connection
between
the
occurrence and the activity of the person
sought to be apprehended and that such
activities were to achieve undue temporal,
physical, economic or other advantage.
There need not be any overt or positive act
of the person intended to be apprehended
at the place. It is enough to prove active
complicity which has a bearing on the
crime.

74. While laying down so, we
should not be oblivious of the avowed
object of the Act. Under the ordinary
criminal law, it is sometimes difficult to
bring to book the overlords of crime and
underworld because they seldom operate in
person or in the public gaze. They indulge
in clandestine operations which threaten to
tear apart the very fabric of society. It is
this purpose which the Act seeks to achieve.

75. But nevertheless we must
sound a note of caution. Provisions of the
Act cannot be used as a weapon to wreak
vengeance
or
harass
or
intimidate
innocent citizens or to settle scores on
political or other fronts. The prosecution
has to bear in mind that it has to bring
home the guilt."

(Emphasis supplied)

32. In Subhash versus State of U.P.,
1998 All.L.J. 4870 : 1998 SCC OnLine All
973, a Division Bench of this Court held
that: -

We are to see, if under the
concept of the offence, created by the Act,
there must be some allegation of any act or
omission towards commission of the
offence. While taking up the question of
constitutional validity of the Act in the case
of Ashok
Kumar
Dixit [Ashok
Kumar
Dixit v. State of U.P., 1987 ACC 164 :
(1987 All LJ 806)], the Full Bench had
made certain very important observations
which are relevant for the present point. It
was observed that a person was not liable
to be punished under the Act merely
because he happened to be a member of the
group. The Court was, rather, of the view
that a person could be accused of an
offence only if he had chosen to join a
group
which
indulges
in
anti-social
activities, defined under the Act, with use of
force for obtaining material or other
advantages to himself or to any person. The
Court was of the view "The element of
actus reus is hence clearly present in the
offence
created
under
the
statute."
Whenever any act or omission covered by
Sections 2 and 3 of the Act is reported an
offence is made out and as a corollary it
may be indicated without any fear of
contradiction that unless an allegation is
there concerning an act or omission on
the part of an accused, covered by the
definition
of
the
term
"gang"
or
"gangster",
no
F.I.R.
should
be
maintainable. Whether the allegations are
true or false will be a matter for
investigation, but unless the allegations of
an offence under the Act are indicated, as
F.I.R. may not be justifiable whatever
large the number of past acts be alleged
against him."

(Emphasis supplied)

33. Upon scrutinizing the facts of the
case in light of the aforesaid law, what
prima facie appears at this stage is that
694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
although the F.I.R. alleges because of the
terror of the gang, of which the applicant is
a member, no person comes forward to
lodge a complaint against them, numerous
F.I.Rs. have
been
filed
against
the
applicant. The informant of Case Crime
No. 174 of 2022 has not only filed an F.I.R.
against the applicant, but he has even come
to oppose the bail application of the
applicant in the present case.

34. The accusation made by the Inspector
is that while he was engaged in patrolling in a
jeep, he found from the record available in the
Police
Station
and
verification
of
the
information received, that all the accused
persons have formed an organized gang,
without any particulars of any act committed by
the applicant as a member of the gang. Prima
facie it appears that the applicant has been
implicated in the present case merely because
he has a criminal history and the applicant is
languishing in jail since 26.08.2022.

35. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
there appears to be no reasonable ground for
prima facie believing that the applicant is guilty
of the offence alleged.

36. The minimum punishment which can
be imposed in case of the applicant's conviction
is imprisonment for two years.

37. There is nothing on record which may
give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the
applicant may tamper with the evidence or
influence the witnesses or that the applicant will
abscond and will not face the trial or that he is
likely to commit any other offence in case he is
released on bail.

38. The applicant has already been
granted bail in all the cases mentioned in the
Gang-chart and in four other cases in which he
is involved, he stands acquitted in four cases,
the police has filed final reports in two cases
and a complaint filed against him stands
rejected and there is no material indicate that the
larger interest of the public or the State would
be affected in case the applicant is enlarged on
bail.

39. Both the other co-accused persons
have already been granted bail in the present
case and the allegations leveled in the F.I.R.
against all the accused persons are the same
and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to claim
his release on bail on the ground of parity also.

40. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, this Court is of the view that the
applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

41. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
the bail application is allowed.

42. Let the applicant Ramesh Rai @
Matru Rai be released on bail in Case Crime
No. 126 of 2022, under Section 3 (1), Uttar
Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986,
Police
Station
Chetganj, District Varanasi, on his furnishing a
personal bond and two reliable sureties, each of
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to following conditions:--

(i) The applicant will not tamper with
the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not influence
any witness.

(iii) The applicant will appear before
the trial court on the dates fixed, unless personal
presence is exempted.

(iv) The applicant shall not
directly or indirectly make inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
12 All. Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian Father Alok Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.
 & Anr.
695
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court
to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.

43. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move an application before this
Court seeking cancellation of bail.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 695
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 981 of 2021

Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian
Father Alok Kumar Srivastava
 ....Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ankit Kapoor, Sri Lal Chandra Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law -Juvenile Justice Act,
2015-Section 102 - Indian Penal Code,
1860-Sections 376-AB, 323 5(Da)/6
POCSO Act-application-rejection-Juvenile
Justice Board as well as the Appellate
Court rejected the bail application-victim
statement
u/s
161
and
164
Cr.P.C.
supported the version of FIR-Lack of
injury is not sufficient to suggest that the
victim
did
not
undergo
the
ordeal
perpetrated
on
her-Crime
has
been
committed in a friendly neighborhood
whom she might have trusted-The view
taken by Juvenile Justice Board and
appellate Court upheld.(Para 1 to 23)

The revision is dismissed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:
1. Amit Kumar Vs St. of U.P. CRLR No. 2732 of
2010

2. Kanchan Sonkar Vs St. of U.P. CRLR No.
1266 of 2020

3. Amit Vs St. of U.P. CRLR No. 1852 of 2015

4. Prakash Vs St. of Raj. (2006) Cri.L.J.1373

5. Vijendra Kumar Mali Vs St. of U.P. (2003) 1
JIC 103

6. Om Prakash Vs St. of Raj. & anr. (2012) 5
SCC 201

7. Mangesh Rajbhar Vs St. of U.P. &anr. (2018)
2 ACR 1941

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. It appears that name of the
revisionist-juvenile has been disclosed in
the memo of revision. This fault from the
side of revisionist escaped detection by the
Registry. The concerned Officer of the
Registry is directed to delete the name of
the revisionist-minor from the title of the
revision as fed and shown in the data on
website and represent him as "Minor 'X'
Through His Natural Guardian Father
Alok Kumar Srivastava".

2. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist as well as learned AGA for the
State and perused the record.

3. This criminal revision under
Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015 has been filed on behalf of the minor
'X' through his natural guardian/father Alok
Kumar Srivastava S/o Dinesh Narayan R/o
Mohalla Ashok Nagar Vanshi Nagla, Near
Neelkanth Mandi, Police Station Subhash
Nagar, Bareilly with the prayer to admit the