The Allahabad High Court has granted the bail application of Mukhtar Ansari in the gangster case and also stayed the fine of Rs 5 lakh imposed on him.
A Single Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Mukhtar Ansari.
The application has been filed by the appellant under section 389(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking following prayer:-
“It is, therefore, Most Respectfully Prayed that the Court may graciously be pleased to allow the application and suspend the sentence awarded by the order dated 29.04.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, M.P/M.L.A Court, Ghazipur in Special S.T No 90 of 2012, (State Vs Mukhtar Ansari), under Section 3(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, arising out of case under Section 3(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur and further be pleased to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case during pendency of the criminal appeal before the Court and it is also prayed that the order dated 29.04.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, M.P/M.L.A Court, Ghazipur in Special S.T No 90 of 2012, (State Vs Mukhtar Ansari), under Section 3(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 should remain stayed during pendency of present appeal.
It is further prayed that the realization of fine should also be stayed by the Court during pendency of the appeal before the Court, otherwise, the Appellant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury. And or to Pass any such other or further order as the Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The appellant has been convicted under section 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs 5 lacs, vide judgment and order dated 29.04.2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, MP/MLA Court, Ghazipur, P.S Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court has not appreciated evidence in correct perspective and there is no credible evidence that appellant is a member of any gang or that he falls within the ambit of Gangster under the Gangster Act. It was submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case due to political rivalry.
It is further submitted that the appellant has been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs five lacs, whereas, he has already served the sentence of more than 13 years and he is still being detained in this case. In view of the period of detention already undergone by the appellant, his detention in this case is illegal.
The Additional Advocate General appearing for State has opposed the application and argued that conviction of the appellant is based on evidence. The Trial Court has assigned cogent reasons while convicting the appellant. The appellant has a long criminal history of 63 cases. As per the appellant, he has already undergone the sentence, awarded by the trial court, and thus, the application for suspension of sentence has become infructuous.
The Court observed that,
Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, in the case, so far the prayer for suspension of sentence is concerned, it may be observed that the appellant has been convicted under section 3(1) of the Gangster Act and he was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs five lacs and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. As per the detention certificate, the appellant has already undergone the substantial sentence of imprisonment and that the sentence awarded to the appellant in default of payment of fine, will commence after he serves the sentences, awarded in other cases.
However, it is not clear that if the sentence awarded to the appellant in lieu of default of fine is yet to be commenced, then how he can be kept in custody for more than 13 years in this very case. In the detention certificate, the Superintendent of Jail, district Banda has not clarified on which date the substantial sentence of 10 years, awarded by the trial court, has been completed.
However, it is apparent from the detention certificate that the appellant has already undergone the substantial sentence of 10 years, awarded by the trial court.
As per the prosecution, the appellant is being detained in other cases and that the sentence awarded to him in default of fine will commence after he completes the sentence awarded in other cases. It may be seen that the prosecution has not come up with a clear case whether the appellant is in custody in the case or not. It would be interesting to note that on the one hand it is being stated on behalf of the prosecution that if as per the appellant, he has served the entire sentence, this application for grant of bail has become infructuous but on the other hand the prayer of suspension of sentence is being opposed.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is still in custody in this very case.
“In the matter, in the affidavit filed in support of the application, there is absolutely nothing that consequences are likely to fall if the conviction of the appellant is not stayed. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 3(1) of Gangster Act. This section provides punishment for a Gangster, as defined under the Act. The said Act aims at curbing the danger of organized crimes and anti-social activities in the State of Uttar Pradesh and was enacted to maintain public order. There is a long criminal history of appellant.
After giving thoughtful consideration to all attending facts of the case, nature of offence of which the appellant has been convicted and the aforesaid position of law, I am of considered view that the instant case does not fall within the ambit of such rare case so as to warrant the stay of conviction of appellant and thus, no case for stay of conviction of appellant is made out. It is correct that the Court is allowing the prayer of suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal, but as stated above, the legal position and parameters for stay of conviction are quite different”, the Court further observed.
In view of aforesaid, the Court rejected prayer for stay of conviction of the appellant.
The Court noted earlier, the prayer for suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of appeal is allowed.
The Court ordered that,
Let the appellant Mukhtar Ansari convicted and sentenced in Special S.T No 90 of 2012, (State Vs Mukhtar Ansari), arising out of case under Section 3(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur be released on bail during pendency of the appeal, subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned, with following conditions:
(i) That the appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not misuse the liberty of bail;
(ii) That the appellant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
It is directed that realisation of the amount of the fine imposed by the Trial Court shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal.