SUBHAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material placed on record.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case with some ulterior motive. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to gang chart, copy of which has been filed as annexure- 2 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application,? only one case has been registered against the applicant, in which the applicant has been enlarged on bail, copy of order granting bail to the applicant has been filed as annexure- 3 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. It has also been submitted that there is nothing on record to show that applicant has gained any undue temporal pecuniary material or any other advantage for himself or any other person by Gangster and Anti Social Activities acts. It is next submitted that there is no report of District Magistrate/Special Court on record regarding acquisition of any movable or immovable property by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the provisions of the Act has been used against the applicant like a weapon to harass and intimidate the innocent applicant. It is next contended that there are no chances of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 09.01.2019 and he is not a previous convict. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

(3.) Per contra learned AGA has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the applicant is a member of gang and habitual of committing crime. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will indulge in similar anti-social activities and will misuse the liberty of bail by extending threat and intimidation to the prosecution witnesses.