'Victim' Of A Predicate Offence Can Oppose Plea Of Accused Seeking Bail In UP Gangster Act Case: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a victim of a predicate offence can claim a right of hearing to oppose the bail application of a person accused under the UP Gangsters Act. 

Taking note of the rulings of the apex court in the cases of Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. LL 2021 SC 229 and Jagjeet Singh And Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu And Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376, the Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed thus:

"If a victim of a predicate offence can file appeal challenging an order granting bail in an offence under the Gangsters Act, he certainly has the right to have an opportunity to oppose the application for grant of bail in an offence under the Act and for that purpose, he will have to be treated as a victim of the offence under the Gangsters Act. Where the victim of a predicate offence has come forward to participate in the proceeding by making submissions in opposition of a bail application, he must be given an opportunity of hearing."

With this, the Single judge disagreed with the decision of a co-ordinate bench in the case of Zeba Rizwan versus the State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 352 wherein it was held that the victim of a predicate offence cannot be treated to be a victim of an offence under the Gangsters Act and doing so will open a pandora's box and it will create hurdles in the disposal of cases.

The case in brief

The Court was dealing with the bail plea filed by one Ramesh Rai @ Matru Rai seeking bail in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 on the basis of the registration of 4 cases against him.

One of these cases was Case Crime No. 74 of 2022 under Sections 448, 386, 504, 506, 420, 120-B, 34 IPC and Sections 10 (i), 10 (ii), 22 and 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Money-Lending Act, 1976. During the course of the hearing of the bail plea, the 'informant' as well as the 'victim' of this very case appeared and sought to oppose the bail application.

At the outset, the State argued that an informant does not fall within the definition of a victim of a case and, therefore, an informant has no right to oppose the prayer for the grant of bail to the applicant in the present case.

It was further argued that Section 19 (4) of the UP Gangster Act provides that the public prosecutor can oppose the application for the release of a person on bail, but there is no provision giving a such right to any person other than the Public Prosecutor.

However, the Court, taking note of the aforementioned decisions of the Supreme Court, the Court concluded that since the informant claims to be a victim of the predicate offence, he has to be treated as a victim of the present offence and he has the right to make submissions in opposition of the bail application.

In view of this, the objection raised on behalf of the bail applicant was rejected and the Court went ahead to decide the application on its merits after taking into consideration the submissions made by the Counsel for the informant in opposition of the bail application.

Further, the Court noted that the applicant had been implicated in the Gangster case solely on the basis of the perusal of records available with the police, and that too, during patrolling in a jeep, and therefore, the Court came to a prima facie conclusion that the applicant had been implicated by the police without any material against him to establish that he is a gangster.

"The applicant has already been granted bail in all the cases mentioned in the Gang-chart and in four other cases in which he is involved, he stands acquitted in four cases, the police has filed final reports in two cases and a complaint filed against him stands rejected and there is no material indicate that the larger interest of the public or the State would be affected in case the applicant is enlarged on bail," the Court remarked as it allowed the bail plea.

Case title - Ramesh Rai @ Matru Rai vs. State of U.P.

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 528

Click Here To Read/Download Order