ANIL YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this (Crime No. 298 of 2007), there were originally seven accused, out of which, Member of Parliament Sri Uma Kant Yadav and his son Dinesh Yadav were refused bail under the provisions of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and out of the remaining five accused, three accused, who had applied for bail earlier, were granted bail because they were not charged under the provisions of the 'Act'. The facts of the case can be gathered from the earlier order (dated 1.10.2007) on the bail application of the accused, which is attached herewith as Annexure-A.

(2.) Heard Sri R. N. Yadav and I. M. Khan, advocate for the applicants and Sri M. L. Shukla, Additional Government Advocate for the State.

(3.) The present two accused have now been charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 427, 504, 506, 440, I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(i) of the Act, pending before the Special Judge Gangsters Act, Gorakhpur. Accused Ramesh Chauhan was the driver of the bulldozer while no specific role has been assigned to Anil Yadav. It was mentioned in the F.I.R. that all the accused had fired from their fire arms, but it is difficult to assume, that the driver also used fire arm and fired. This shows that the omnibus statement in the F.I.R. that all the accused fired from their fire arms does not appear to be prima facie tenable.