# Rinkaj Yadav v. State of U.P. Opp. Party - **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 32 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-06-09 - **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 16767 of 2021 - **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rinkaj-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-47054 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote (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:- ## Text 32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES proceedings under the U.P. Gangster Act. It may suffer from the vice of double jeopardy, but in a given and changed circumstances, they may lodge subsequent FIR under the aforesaid Act of 1986. [39] The Court expects that concern responsible authorities would take the matter on highest priority and frame the rules as expected within time frame. [40] Let the copy of this order be handed over to learned Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad who shall transmit its copies to Principal Secretary(Homes), Director General of Police, Lucknow, all the S.P/S.S.Ps of the District as well as learned Sessions Judge of every Sessions Division to ensure its compliance in letter and spirit within time bound period. All the pending gang chart shall be amended accordingly. ---------- (2021)06ILR A32 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.06.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 16767 of 2021 Rinkaj Yadav ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Opp. Party Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla 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. 19 of 2021, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Ahraula, District Azamgarh. 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 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail 6 All. Rinkaj Yadav Vs. State of U.P. 33 application that the applicant has already been released on bail in Case Crime No. 184 of 2020 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 08.01.2021 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- Rinkaj Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2021, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Ahraula, District Azamgarh, 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 construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. ---------- 34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2021)06ILR A34 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BACHCHOO LAL, J. THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2014 Jakir Ali & Anr. ...Appellants Versus State of U.P. ...Opp. Party Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Rashtrapati Khare, Sri Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Sri Y.C. Yadav Counsel for the Opp. Party: A.G.A., Sri Anirudh Upadhyay (A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161, 162 (2) , Section 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32(1) - Conviction - Dying declaration - Illicit relations - Burn injury - Where the dying declaration is found truthful and voluntary, it is not necessary to corroborate the dying declaration by any other evidence. (Para - 16) Appellants together set fire to deceased by sprinkling kerosene oil, her neck was also tied by a rope - 80% of burn injury - guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. . - Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by trial court. HELD:- The trial court rightly found the dying declaration , truthful and trustworthy and the circumstances surrounding the dying declaration are clear and convincing, it can be acted upon without corroboration to hold the prosecution successfully proved the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against the appellants . The findings of the trial court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence. The injuries on the body of the deceased fully support the prosecution case. Trial court did not commit any error in convicting the appellants.(Para - 102) Criminal Appeal dismissed. (E-6) List of Cases cited:- 1. Khushal Rao Vs St. of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 2. Harbans Singh Vs St. of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 439 3. Tapinder Singh Vs St. of Punjab,1972 SCC 113 4. Laxman Vs St.of Mah., (2002) 6 SCC 710 5. Paniben Vs St. of Guj. (1992) 2 SCC 474 6. Khushal Rao Vs St. of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 7. Harbans Singh Vs St.of Punj., AIR 1962 SC 439 8. Gopal Singh Vs St. of M.P., (1972) 3 SCC 268 9. Ram Bihari Yadav Vs St. of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517 10. Ramilaben Hasmukhbhai Khristi Vs St. of Guj. , (2002) 7 SCC 56 11. Bhajju Vs St. of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 327 12. Suresh Chandra Jana Vs St.of W.B., (2017) 16 SCC 466 13. St. of U.P. Vs Ram Sagar Yadav, (1985) 1 SCC 552 14. Madan @ Madhu Patekar Vs St.of Mah., (2019) 13 SCC 464 15. Puran Chand Vs St. of Har., (2010) 6 SCC 566 16. Stat. of Raj. Vs Ganwara, (2019) 13 SCC 687 17. Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam Vs St.of A.P., (1993) 2 SCC 684