BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, J. These are five bail applications, which are being consolidated for orders, because they relate to the same occurrence and the crime number (298 of 2007 Police Station Phoolpur Kotwali District Azamgarh) is the same. 2. All the five applicants (accused) have been charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 427, 504, 506, 440 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act while two of them Uma Kant and his son Dinesh Yadav have also been charged under Section 3 (i) of U. P. Gangsters Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (U. P. Act No. 7 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as the act. 3. Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri R. N. Yadav for the applicants, Sri M. L. Shukla, Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Shukla for the complainant. 4. The order is being bifurcated because under the Gangsters Act, there are special provisions of bail which need to be considered separately. 5. The offences under the Indian Penal Code against all the five accused must first be considered. 6. Sri Umakant Yadav is a Member of Parliament and Sri Dinesh Yadav is his son. Sri Umakant Yadav had purchased a piece of land in village Paliya Mafi Police Station Phoolpur Kotwali in District Azamgarh on 4-9-1998. He wanted to make construction over the land and some rooms were constructed thereon. In between this land and the road, there was the residential house of the complainant on the land purchased by his father vide registered deed dated 30-10-2006, which contained specific dimensions and precise details of the land purchased. Accused Sri Uma Kant wanted his house to be removed so that the constructions he had undertaken may acquire a road side frontage. The complainant, who was the owner of this house, refused to sell the house and the land of the house to Umakant and his efforts to acquire the same failed to fructify. This enraged Umakant Yadav and his son Dinesh Yadav, who demolished the house by a bulldozer on the night of 28-5-2007 around 12 Oclock. The remaining three accused-applicants were involved in the demolition process. In consequence, the house was flattened. The side plan of the spot, which is on the case diary, will make things clear. The complainant thereafter lodged an F. I. R. on 29-5-2007 at 5. The remaining three accused-applicants were involved in the demolition process. In consequence, the house was flattened. The side plan of the spot, which is on the case diary, will make things clear. The complainant thereafter lodged an F. I. R. on 29-5-2007 at 5. 20 a. m. at Police Station Phoolpur Kotwali, whereupon the case against the accused was registered. The trial Court rejected the bail of the five accused-applicants and thereafter they have come to this Court. 7. When demolition was resisted, the accused are said to have used fire-arms to muffle resistance. The clout, the might and the authority displayed by a Member of Parliament in demolishing a poor neighbours house shows, not only his arrogance and swagger, but also scant respect for law. Representatives of the people in Law Making Bodies carry a heavy responsibility and are expected to demonstrate in their conduct the virtues of a good citizen. It is distressing to see law makers turning law breakers. They need to be reminded of the oft repeated aphorism that howsoever high you may be, the law is above you. The offence is grave and terror creating and the complainant has suffered enormous loss by demolition of the house which the criminal law, will not compensate. 8. Accused Umakant and his son Dinesh Yadav do not, therefore, deserve bail. As regards the three other applicants, their role is of subordinate nature and they had no personal interest involved. They have not been named in the F. I. R. and their names appear for the first time in statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr. P. C. They may, therefore, be granted bail. 9. As regards the offence, under the U. P. Gangsters Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, which is only against Umakant and his son Dinesh Yadav, it will be noted that provisions for the bail are contained in Section 19 (4) of the Act, which are as follows : "19. Modified application at certain provisions of the Code.- (1 ). . . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . . . . Modified application at certain provisions of the Code.- (1 ). . . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . . . . (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless - (a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. " 10. It will be seen that in Section 2 of Act, "gang" has been defined, which is as follows : " (2) (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) "gang" means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in anti-social activities, namely : (i) offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVIL, or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860), or (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii) occupying or taking possession of immovable property otherwise than in accordance with law, or setting up false claims for title or possession of immovable property whether in himself or any other person, or (iv ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (v ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (vi ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (vii ). . . . . . . . . (v ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (vi ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (vii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (viii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ix ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (x ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (xi) creating panic, alarm or terror in public, or (xii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (xiii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (xiv ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (xv ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 11. It will be seen that the accused Uma Kant and his son Dinesh demolished the house of the complainant in violation of law and they also used fire-arms to facilitates their acts, which created panic, alarm and terror in public. It cannot, therefore, be said that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that these two accused-applicants are not guilty of an offence in the Act. They are consequently not entitled for bail under the U. P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 12. The application of accused Uma Kant and Dinesh are accordingly rejected. Applicants Babu Lal, Narsingh Rai, Hori Lal Prajapati be released on bail on their each furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Order accordingly. 12. The application of accused Uma Kant and Dinesh are accordingly rejected. Applicants Babu Lal, Narsingh Rai, Hori Lal Prajapati be released on bail on their each furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. Order accordingly. .