Come on Iqbalalong with his sons (bail applicants), is accused of running an interstate criminal gang involved in various financial and corporal crimes.

A bank of Justice Krishan Pahal observed that subsequent to the original FIR other FIRs were lodged against the complainant and the co-accused and thus inference can be drawn against them.

“The present case does not appear to be an abuse of fact as the applicant has a long criminal record and committed the crime after the instant FIR was instituted.”, the Court observed in two separate orders passed against the appellants (Javed and Alishan).

Thus, the Court found no reasonable ground to believe that the applicants are not guilty of such offense and are not likely to commit any offense in future on bail as required by Section 19(4) of the UP Gangsters Act.

Importantly, the single judge also considered that co-defendant Come on Iqbalwho happens to be the father of the applicants, has already fled the country and resides in Dubai; as such, plaintiffs are a “flight risk.” Thus, their bail applications were rejected.

The case in brief

The complainant (Javed and Alishan) is facing an FIR alleging that the accused person Hazi Iqbal is the leader of the gang and the complainant along with five other named accused persons are operating an inter-state district gang which is involved in threatening people. to cause their death, extortion and extraction of illegal money.

The FIR also alleges that they are involved in timber smuggling, illegal logging and illegal possession of public land and as such have caused terror, fear and a sense of insecurity among the general public.

Applying for bail in the case, counsel for the applicants submitted that the present FIR was only a misuse of the provisions of the Gangsters Act as the applicant was implicated in the present case only on the basis of two cases mentioned in the gang chart.

It was argued that the applicants, having been acquitted of one of the principal offenses and granted interim protection in another case, were entitled to bail in this case, no case being made out against them.

On the other hand, counsel for the state strongly argued that the bail application was opposed on the ground that it is settled law that bail or acquittal of the accused in the main offense does not entitle to bail.

It was also argued that the applicant is a flight risk as his father Hazi Iqbal has already fled the country and is the main accused and the applicant acted in connivance and connivance with his father.

However, having regard to the submissions of the counsel for the parties, the nature of the charges, the gravity of the offence, and all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court held that it was not a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the applicants’ bail applications were dismissed.

Apparitions

Counselor for the applicant: Senior Advocate Manish Tiwari, Assisted by Advocate Indra Bhan Yadav along with Advocates Abhisht Jaiswal, Atharva Dixit, Bipin Kumar, Jai Prakash, Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui, Saurabh Sachan, Sudhir Kumar Agarwal

Counsel for the opposite party: Additional Solicitor General Manish Goyal assisted by AGA Vikas Sahai

Case Title – Alishan vs. UP State

Case Citation:

Click here to read/download the order