ANUPAM SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Utsav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-respondents, Shri K. K. Rao, learned counsel for the informant in predicate offence and perused the record.

(2.) The present bail application under Sec. 439 Cr. P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicant Anupam Shukla Alias Anupama Tripathi under Sec. 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 339 of 2024, under Ss. 2, 3(1) Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial.

(3.) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. Present case has been imposed upon the applicant on the basis of solitary case mentioned in the Gang Chart. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation against the applicant is that the applicant along with co-accused Apurva Sonkar is operating a gang and the applicant is a member of the said Gang and is habitual to commit offence under Chapter 17 and 22 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the prosecution story, the complainant has lodged a criminal case, being Case Crime No. 340 of 2023 under Sec. 386 against the applicant with the allegation that threats were extended to the complainant for illegal demand of money. The applicant had challenged the aforesaid FIR before this Court, in which interim protection was granted to the applicant by this Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though this Court had granted interim protection to the applicant, but the Investigating Officer illegally arrested the applicant and sent her to jail. Thereafter, applicant moved bail application before this Court and she was enlarged on bail by this Court. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is having criminal history of four cases including the present case. All the FIRs were lodged against the applicant with mala fide intention for the purpose of harassment. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 4/9/2024 undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.