Co-Accused Father Already Fled The Country: Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Accused Under U.P. Gangsters Act Citing 'Flight Risk'
The Allahabad High Court has denied bail to an accused found to be a “flight risk” under the U.P. Gangster Act after noting that his father, the main accused, has already fled the Country.
The Court rejected the bail application of the accused under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (the Act) after observing that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not guilty of the alleged offences or that he was not likely to commit any offence in future while on bail.
A Single Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal held, “It is informed by learned A.G.A. that four witnesses have been examined and the trial is at its conclusive end. It is an admitted fact that co-accused person Hazi Iqbal @ Balla, who happens to be father of the applicant, had already fled the country and is residing in Dubai, as such, the applicant is a flight risk.”
Senior Advocate Manish Tiwari appeared for the Applicant, while Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal represented the Opposite Party.
The accused was implicated under Sections 2 and 3 of the Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with co-accused, was part of an interstate gang engaged in financial and corporeal crimes, including illegal mining, extortion, smuggling of wood, and unlawful possession of public land.
The accused’s criminal history was allged to include 19 cases, out of which four were quashed by the Supreme Court, and another four by the High Court. Anticipatory and regular bail had been granted in several others, while two cases remained under stay orders issued by the High Court.
The accused argued that he had been falsely implicated due to political vendetta. The FIR was alleged to misuse the provisions of the U.P. Gangsters Act, with the accused’s name based solely on two prior cases listed in the gang chart. The accused had been exonerated in one of these cases following a closure report filed, while proceedings in the second case were stayed by the High Court.
The High Court noted that under Section 19(4) of the Act, bail cannot be granted unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and is unlikely to commit any further offences while on bail.
“Subsequent to the instant FIR, other FIRs have been instituted against the applicant and other co-accused persons, as such, inference can be drawn against the applicant. The circumstances and the gravity of offence mentioned in the said FIRs go against the applicant,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant is hereby rejected.”
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Bail Application.
Cause Title: Alishan v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:181548)
Appearance:
Applicant: Senior Advocate Manish Tiwari; Advocates Bipin Kumar, Indra Bhan Yadav, Jai Prakash, Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui, Saurabh Sachan and Sudhir Kumar Agarwal
Opposite Party: Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal; AGA Vikas Sahai
