SHITAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Satyendra Narain Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner urged that the provisions of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been invoked in the present case on account of involve ­ment of the petitioner in four criminal cases, namely, case Crime No. 197 of 1992 under Sections 380/411 I.P.C. P.S. Chaubeypur, District Varanasi; case Crime No. 259 of 2000 under Sections 323, 504, 506. 352, 450 I.P.C. P.S. Chaubeypur, District Varanasi, case Crime No. 261 of 2000 under Section 25 Arms Act P.S. Chaubeypur, District Varanasi and case Crime No. 16 of 2000 under Sections 307/504/506 I.P.C. P.S. Chaubeypur, District Varanasi. In all the aforesaid cases, the petitioner has been released on bail. Merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures it has been decided by the concerned authorities that the petitioner is terroris ­ing the society, which fact is apparent from bare perusal of the impugned notice.

(3.) WE have perused he notice in ques ­tion and feel that the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is well merited. The notice has specified the aforesaid three criminal cases against the petitioner. Admittedly, in all the three cases, the petitioner has been released on bail and the trial is going on. A person is released on bail only when the Court finds that prima facie, no case is made out, and, by virtue of bail orders passed in favour of the petitioner, the impugned notice cannot be sustained in law. Since the law on the point is well settled, instead of dragging this petition unnecessarily, we are inclined to dispose of this petition finally at this stage.