Court No. - 48 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18908 of 2025 Applicant :- Yashpal Tomar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Tripathi,Navnath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yadyavalak Pandey, learned A.G.A. for State-respondents and perused the records. 2. The instant second bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. at the instance of the applicant, Yashpal Tomar has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 136 of 2023, under Section 2/3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar during the pendency of the trial. 3. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.03.2025. The applicant is stated to be languishing in jail since 20.03.2024. 4. Sri Akhilesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the second bail application vehemently submits that this Court while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant took into account the criminal antecedent of 23 cases lodged against the applicant to draw an inference that the applicant along with other co-accused persons was operating an organized gang for pecuniary and monetary benefits. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the criminal antecedent of the applicant have been duly explained in para 39 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It is argued that out of the 23 cases, the applicant has been acquitted in three cases, final report has been submitted in two cases and the same has also been accepted by the court concerned, one case has been merged as it arose out of same transaction/incident in other cases the applicant has been enlarged on bail. Reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 2020(11) SCC 648 is pressed to buttress the point that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. Learned counsel for the applicant presses the second bail application of the applicant on the following legal grounds:- i) The present prosecution against the applicant has been initiated without the proper compliance of the Act/Rules. ii) The F.I.R. as well as the gang chart is defective. iii) The investigation in the present matter being carried is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 6. Elaborating his arguments further learned counsel for the applicant has argued that in the gang chart the date of preparation of the gang chart has not been mentioned and the same does not bear the particular/credentials and signature of the persons, in- charge of P.S./S.H.O./Inspector who prepared the gang chart which is contrary to Rule 8 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021. The gang chart does not disclose the discussion in a joint meting and all the concerned authorities have signed the gang chart on different dates. Except the Commissioner of Police the other police authorities have merely mentioned their respective recommendations and there is no declaration disclosing "discussion in a joint meeting". The gang chart has been prepared in a printed format, showing prejudiced mind. There is no description of any incident with date and time to demonstrate the commission of any offence falling in the ambit of Section 2(1) of the Act. The prosecution of the applicant under the Gangster Act has been initiated on the basis of a solitary case being Case Crime No. 280 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B I.P.C. and 3(1)(E) of SC/ST Act. The F.I.R. was lodged by Inspector, Sujeet Upadhayay who has been entrusted with the investigation of the case which is in clear violation of Rule 19 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 which provides that investigation is to be done by different Police Station. Various other legal arguments have been made by the learned counsel for the applicant to demonstrate the illegality of the prosecution. It is next contended that all the named accused persons in the F.I.R. have been released on bail except the applicant. The applicant undertakes that he will not violate the liberty granted if released on bail and shall co- operate with the trial. It is accordingly prayed that the applicant be released on bail. 7. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but could not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicant, Yashpal Tomar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions- (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. Order Date :- 13.6.2025 Ruhi H. Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad