Rizwan Solanki v. State of U.P

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8920 of 2025 Reserved on 02.09.2025 Delivered on 25.09.2025

Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶1Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Vikas Sahai, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶2The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 156 of 2022, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar during pendency of the trial. Brief facts of the case:

¶3FIR of the present case was lodged on 26.12.2022 under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters Act against applicant and four others. According to the FIR, applicant is one of the gang member and other accused are also active members of the gang and they indulged in anti social activities. It also reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged on the basis of gang chart and in the gang chart two cases relate to offences under Sections 147, 436, 506, 327, 427, 386, 504, 120B IPC and Sections 420/447 IPC and Section 3/4 The Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 have been shown against the applicant as base cases. Arguments advanced on behalf of applicant: Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Imran Ullah, Vineet Vikram Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rizwan Solanki .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)

¶4Learned counsel for applicant submits, on the basis of false allegation applicant has been roped in the present matter. He further submits, on the basis of two base cases shown in the gang chart applicant has been made accused in the present matter and has been declared as gang member but both the base cases are not of such nature on the basis of which applicant should be made accused in the present matter.

¶5He further submits, even from the gang chart it reflects, mandatory Gangsters Rules, 2021 have not been followed while approving the same. He further submits, gang chart suggests that Additional Police Commissioner and Deputy Police Commissioner although approved the gang chart on

24.12.2022 but Commissioner of Police approved it on 25.12.2022, therefore, it is apparent that the gang chart of the present case has not been approved in the joint meeting which is in violation of Rule 5(3)(a) of 2021.

¶6He further submits, even from the gang chart it reflects, without application of mind gang chart has been approved which is again against the Rules 17 of 2021. He further submits, Gangsters Rule 2021 have been introduced to ensure that the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act should not be misused and therefore its provisions are mandatory.

¶7He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1216 and judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 SCC OnLine All 2975.

¶8He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of four cases excluding the base cases shown against him in the gang chart but his criminal history has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of instant bail application.

¶9He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since December, 2022 i.e. for last more than two and half years. Submissions advanced on behalf of the State:

¶10Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant used to commit the heinous offences like extortion, therefore, it cannot be said that he has been wrongly made accused in the present matter.

¶11He further submits, applicant is a gang member and along with other gang members he used to indulge in anti social activities.

¶12He next submits, even apart from the present case and two base cases shown in the gang chart applicant is having criminal history of five other cases and his criminal history has been disclosed in counter affidavit filed by the State, therefore, considering the provisions of Section 19(4) of U.P. Gangsters Act, applicant should not be released on bail.

¶13He further submits, there is no material available before this Court on the basis of which this Court can reasonably believed that applicant is not guilty. He further submits, even from the gang chart it could not be reflected, it has been approved in violation of Rules, 2021 and without application of mind authorities concerned approved it.

¶14He further submits, whether there is any illegality in the gang chart it can only be adjudicated by the trial court during trial and at the stage of bail, this Court cannot record any finding in this regard.

¶15He further submits, on 26.10.2023 when applicant was present in District Court then he threatened the witnesses and in this regard a separate FIR has been lodged against him at Case Crime No. 240 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 386, 323, 504, 506, 120B, 34 IPC, therefore, there is every possibility that if applicant will be released on bail then he will again try to tamper the prosecution evidence.

¶16He further submits, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant bail application should be dismissed. Analysis and conclusion:

¶17I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18From the record, it reflects, on the basis of two base cases shown in the gang chart applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

¶19However, as per prosecution, applicant is the gang member and he along with his other gang members indulged in anti social activities but from the gang chart it reflects, it has been approved by Additional Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police on 24.12.2022 but Commissioner concerned has approved it on 25.12.2022, therefore, prima facie it appears, the gang chart has not been approved in the joint meeting of the authorities concerned which is against the Rule 5(3)(a) of 2021.

¶20Further, even from the gang chart it reflects, in a very cryptic manner authorities concerned approved the gang chart and prima facie from the gang chart it could not be reflected, they applied their mind and therefore, it reflects, Rule 17 of 2021 has also not been complied with in its true spirit.

¶21The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra (supra) on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for applicant categorically held that the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act are stringent and therefore they must be strictly followed and after considering that there is violation of Rules, 2021 Division Bench quashed the FIR. Even the Apex Court in case of Vinod Bihari Lal (supra) also observed that Rules 2021 should be followed before approving the gang chart.

¶22The Apex Court in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal (supra) also observed that from the gang chart it must be reflected that authorities concerned before approving it has applied its mind.

¶23Further, however, from the counter affidavit filed by the State it reflects, on 07.11.2023 a FIR was lodged against applicant and others for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 386, 323, 504, 506, 120B, 34 IPC but it reflects, the alleged incident of threatening and extortion said to have been occurred on 26.10.2023 but FIR was lodged by the informant on 07.11.2023 i.e. after about two weeks. Considering the fact that family of the applicant is having political background the possibility of false implication in this case, cannot be ruled out specially considering the contents of the FIR, which prima facie appears to be unconvincing.

¶24Further, however it reflects, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of six cases including base cases but it reflects, one case is of the year 2008 in which final report has been submitted which has also been accepted and one case is of the year 2023 in which he has been made accused while he was in custody in the present matter and remaining three cases were of the year 2022 and it reflects, in all the cases applicant is on bail.

¶25Further, however, as per Section 19(4) U.P. Gangsters Act before releasing an accused on bail, who is detained under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act it is necessary for the Court to satisfy that he is not guilty and he is not likely to commit offence while on bail but considering the fact that prima facie it appers, gang chart of the present case has been approved in violation of mandatory Rules, 2021 therefore in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal (supra) it can be reasonably believed that applicant is not guilty.

¶26Further, as this Court can reasonably believe, applicant is not guilty, therefore, on the basis of second condition mentioned under Section 19(4) of U.P. Gangsters Act in view of this Court bail application of the applicant should not be withheld.

¶27Further, apart from the provisions of Section 19(4) of U.P. Gangsters Act this Court is also not oblivious to the fact that while deciding the bail application, criminal antecedents of an accused is having its own importance but law is settled that if in a given case accused makes out a strong prima facie case then merely on the basis of criminal antecedents his bail application should not be withheld. (See:Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763).

¶28In case at hand, as already observed, prima facie it appears, gang chart of the present case is not in accordance with Rules 2021, therefore, in view of this Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedent of the applicant, his bail application should not be withheld.

¶29Further, minimum two years sentence has been provided under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters Act which however can be extended up to ten years but applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than two and half years, therefore, he has served more than minimum sentence provided under the Act.

¶30Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶31Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶32Let the applicant -Rizwan Solanki be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶33In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶34It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 25, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad