In the case of Kamlesh Pathak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court of Allahabad has rejected a Bail of former UP MLA Kamlesh Pathak, alleging in the Gangster Act case. The Bench headed by Justice Krishna Pahal informed that there are no valid grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty.

The Court also said that Pathak is likely to commit any offence if he will on Bail. Taking account of the gravity of the offence of the accused, the Court rejected his Bail. 

In 2020, The accused along with 10 other members is booked under Section 3(1) of the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, on the allegations that he is running an active gang in the area as its ‘leader’. 

It was also stated in the gang chart that Pathak and his gang members caused the daylight murder of Advocate Manju Chaubey and his sister Sudha Chaubey to take illegal possession of the land. It was also alleged that the members of his gang keep on committing the offences referred to in Sections 16, 17 and 22 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act due to which the public at large is so much terrified that nobody dares to come forward and speak or make a statement against them.

The said gang chart was sent to the office of the District Magistrate, Auraiya for sanction and once the sanction was received, the eleven members of the gang were 3 booked under the Gangster Act.

The Counsel member of the accused Advocate V.P. Srivastava moved to the High Court seeking bail and argued that he has been booked owing to the political rivalry and had nothing to do with the double murder case (predicate offence of killing of two advocates) and that he has been granted bail in the said case.

On the contrary, the state’s counsel G.A., Anil Tiwari (Senior Counsel) Anurag Shukla, and adv Dharmendra Shukla submitted that an applicant is a person who very much qualifies for the definition of gangster defined under the Act. It was also submitted that the bail granted to the applicant in the predicate offence of Section 302 IPC is without jurisdiction and the same has been challenged before the Apex Court.

It was also argued that the trial is going on in the predicate offence and there is every likelihood of the applicant influencing the witnesses as he has long criminal antecedents.

After an argument, the Court held that the present case does not seem to be a misuse of the State Gangster Act and the accused, having such large criminal antecedents and being the head of the gang, is not entitled to bail.