Lukman vs State of U.P.

S.K. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.

In this case a notice was given to the learned A.G.A. on 75 2002. The contention that he has not received any instruction even after 26 days cannot be entitled. Only 10 day''s time is prescribed under the rule to receive the instruction. The applicant was incarcerated under the provision of Section 3 (i) U.P. Gangster and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act on the basis of three offence, one which is of under Section 307 I.P.C. One of which is of the year 1993. The other two are of under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. These two offences are of the year 2000 and 2001. The incarceration under the provision of Gangster Act was made on 2682001. None of the ingredients which are necessary for the involvement of the person in the Gangster Act are madeout. There is no allegation that he had been earning money by extortion, robbery and dacoity or other illegal means in any of these cases.

In the circumstances the allegations made in the F.I.R. are not only malicious but deliberate in order to keep the applicant in Jail.

In my opinion in the fact and circumstances discussed above the applicant is entitled to bail.

Let the applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Gangster Act, Lucknow in Crime No. 172 of 2001 under Section 3 (i), U.P. Gangster & AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Nighasan, District Kheri.