2022 (8) TMI 1380 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - it is alleged that applicant is a member of gang and habitual of committing crime - HELD THAT - Having considered the submissions of the parties larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the cases of DATARAM SINGH VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. 2018 (2) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANR. 2021 (10) TMI 1296 - SUPREME COURT and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Bail application in Special Case related to U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Act

Analysis:
The bail application was filed on behalf of the applicant, seeking release in a case under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Act. The applicant, Manoj Tyagi, had a criminal history with multiple cases, but the counsel argued that he was falsely implicated due to police rivalry and was not a gang member. The applicant had been in jail since July 5, 2021. On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General opposed the bail, stating that the applicant was a habitual criminal and a threat to society, likely to engage in further criminal activities if released.

Considering the arguments presented, the court referred to the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and previous judgments, including Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. The court decided to grant bail to the applicant without expressing an opinion on the case's merits. The bail was subject to conditions to ensure the applicant's compliance and prevent misuse of liberty. These conditions included not tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses, attending all court dates, and not seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Additionally, the applicant had to provide personal bonds and sureties, with verification of identity, status, and residence. Breach of any bail conditions would lead to cancellation. The court emphasized the importance of the applicant's presence during critical stages of the trial, warning that deliberate absence could result in further legal action. The decision balanced the applicant's right to bail with the need to maintain law and order, setting strict guidelines to safeguard against potential misuse of freedom.