VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J. Prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the applicant-accused Yashpal Singh, who is involved in case crime no. 357 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504 and 120-B I. P. C. and Section 2/3 of U. P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act as well as Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P. S. Kotwali, Distrcit Jhansi. 2. Four persons namely Arvind , Devendra, Kamlesh and Ashok were brutally murdered and grievous injuries were caused to Suresh and Arvind in the broad day light incident, which occurred on 30. 3. 2007 at about 2. 00 P. M. . First information report of that incident was lodged on 30. 3. 2007 at 5. 05 P. M. by Rajesh Yadav s/o late Hari Ram Yadav, r/o village Mairy, P. S. Navbad, District Jhansi at P. S. Kotwali, Jhansi; where a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504 and 120-B I. P. C. , and Section 2/3 of U. P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act as well as Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act was registered against Krishna Pal alias Lalla Yadav, Shisu Pal Yadav, Sumit Yadav, Sheetal Yadav, Arvind Yadav, Ram Pal, Lakhan Yadav, Ravi Yadav, Ajab Singh Yadav, Yash Pal Singh (applicants herein) and two unknown persons. The allegations in the F. I. R. , in brief, are that about 15 days ago, the police had made a raid at the house of Yashpal Singh from where arms and ammunition in huge quantity were recovered. Yash Pal Singh had suspicion that Ashok Yadav, cousin brother of the complainant, had informed the police and on this basis Yashpal Singh and his family members began to have enmity with Ashok Yadav. On 18. 3. 2007 at about 5. 00 P. M. . Yashpal Singh had threatened Ashok Yadav that if he had to go to jail in the case of search of his house, then remaining in jail itself he would get his entire family members killed. It is further alleged in the F. I. R. that on 30. 3. 2007 at about 2. 2007 at about 5. 00 P. M. . Yashpal Singh had threatened Ashok Yadav that if he had to go to jail in the case of search of his house, then remaining in jail itself he would get his entire family members killed. It is further alleged in the F. I. R. that on 30. 3. 2007 at about 2. 00 P. M. when the complainant Rajesh Yadav, his cousin brothers Arvind and Raghvendra both sons of late Santosh Singh, his nephew Surendra s/o late Munna Lal, cousin brother Ashok s/o Dasrath and his nephew Jitendra and Devendra, both sons of Satish were present at his building material shop and Kamlesh Kushwaha s/o Bhagwan Das, and Harcharan s/o Ghanshyam Yadav were also sitting in the shop, the accused Krishna Pal alias Lalla Yadav, Shisu Pal Yadav, Sumit Yadav, Sheetal Yadav, Arvind Yadav, Ram Pal, Lakhan, Ravi, Ajab Singh and two unknown persons came there on Bulero and motorcycle and fired indiscriminately from rifles, guns and Tamanchas, thereby causing grievous injuries to Arvind, Devendra, Kamlesh, Suresh, Ashok and Brijesh, due to which, Kamlesh, Ashok, Devendra and Arvind succumbed to the injuries. It is also alleged in the F. I. R. that there is organized gang of Yaspal Singh etc. and due to their terror in the area nobody is ready to say anything. 3. I have heard Sri V. C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri N. K. Sharma appearing for the appellant, Sri Viresh Mishra, leared Senior Advocate assisted by Sir M. D. Misra for the complainant and learned A. G. A. for the State. 4. The main submission in support of the bail application made by learned counsel for the applicant is that prior to the alleged incident, which occurred on 30. 3. 2007, the applicant Yashpal Singh was in jail in connection with case of alleged recovery of arms and ammunition from his house and since there is no evidence against him about hatching conspiracy by him for committing the alleged incident on 30. 3. 2007, hence, the applicant should be granted bail in this case, because being in jail prior to 30. 3. 2007, the applicant was not in a position to render any help to other accused, who are said to have committed the alleged incident. 3. 2007, hence, the applicant should be granted bail in this case, because being in jail prior to 30. 3. 2007, the applicant was not in a position to render any help to other accused, who are said to have committed the alleged incident. The contention of learned counsel was that the applicant has been falsely roped in this case without any evidence of conspiracy against him for committing the alleged incident of 30. 3. 2007. 5. Regarding the offence under Section 2/3 of U. P. Gangsters Act, it was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that out of the cases shown in the gangchart, the applicant has been acquitted in some cases and he is on bail in other cases and hence, he is now entitled for bail under Section 2/3 U. P. Gangsters Act also. 6. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused persons mentioned in the F. I. R. are not the member of any gang and Section 2/3 U. P. Gangsers Act has been unnecessarily added in the F. I. R. . 7. The bail application was resisted by learned A. G. A. and learned counsel for the complainant contending that prior to the incident of 30. 3. 2007, in which four persons were brutally murdered and grievous injuries were caused to two persons, the applicant Yashpal Singh had given threatening to Ashok Yadav, cousin brother of complainant, that if he had to go to jail in the case of search of his house, then remaining in jail itself, he would get his entire family members eliminated and when the applicant was arrested by the police in the case of recovery of illicit arms and ammunition from his house and he was sent to jail, he hatched conspiracy with other accused from the jail itself and in pursuance of that conspiracy, the incident of 30. 3. 2007 was committed by four brothers of the applicant, namely Krishn Pal Yadav alias Lalla, Shishupal Yadav, Sumit Yadav and Sheetal Yadav and other accused named in the F. I. R. , and hence, the applicant should not be granted bail in this heinous crime, because the incident of 30. 3. 2007 was committed by accused persons in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by the applicant from jail. 8. 3. 2007 was committed by accused persons in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by the applicant from jail. 8. It was further contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant is indulging in committing the crime being lodged in jail, hence, in view of sub Section (4) (b) of Section 19 of U. P. Gangsters Act, he cannot be granted bail under Section 2/3 of this Act. It was submitted in this regard by the learned counsel for the complainant that being lodged in jail, the applicant Yashpal had threatened Harcharan, who is the eye witness of the incident of 30. 3. 2007, not to depose against him. In this regard my attention was drawn towards the F. I. R. lodged by Harcharan on 23. 1. 2008 against the applicant Yashpal Singh at P. S. Navabad, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure with the supplementary counter affidavit dated 31. 1. 208, against which no rejoinder affidavit has been filed from the side of the applicnat. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant was that a person who is committing the crime being lodged in jail, would certainly temper with the evidence, if he is granted bail. 9. Next submission made by learned counsel for the complainant was that applicant Yash Pal Singh is the leader of an organized gang and he had illegally occupied the properties of other persons, who have lodged first information reports against him, copies whereof have been filed as annexures with counter affidavit dated 20. 11. 2007, against which no rejoinder affidavit has been filed from the side of the applicant. 10. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that the Advocate, who was rendering legal aid to the complainant, has also been murdered by the associates of the applicant and widow of one deceased of instant case has committed suicide due to the torture, threatening and humiliation extended by the associates of the applicant. My attention was also drawn by learned counsel for the complainant towards an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 15. 11. 2007 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17945 of 2007, whereby certain directions have been given to the Director General of Police and Chief Secretary (Home), Govt. of U. P. Lucknow for providing adequate security to complainant Rajesh Yadav and his family members. 11. 11. 2007 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17945 of 2007, whereby certain directions have been given to the Director General of Police and Chief Secretary (Home), Govt. of U. P. Lucknow for providing adequate security to complainant Rajesh Yadav and his family members. 11. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that on the application of the complainant Rajesh Yadav, this Court had passed an order on 27. 11. 2007 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 27581 of 2007, whereby direction was issued to the trial court concerned to decide Session Trial No. 92 of 2007 (State vs. Shishupal and others) within a period of three months, but inspite of that order, the accused persons are causing delay in the trial and if the applicant is released on bail, he would certainly eliminate the witnesses. 12. Regarding the acquittal of the applicant Yash Pal Singh in some cases shown in the gangchart, it was submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that due to the terror of the applicant, the witnesses could not dare to depose against him and they had turned hostile, which itself shows that applicant is hardened criminal, who is organizing a gang and due to his terror in the area, no person can dare to depose against him. For this submission, my attention was drawn towards the copies of the judgements, which have been filed on behalf of the applicant himself as annexures to the affidavit of Manna Lal. 13. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the entire material on record, in my considered opinion, the applicant does not deserve bail in this heinous offence and especially no case for granting bail to the applicant under Section 2/3 of U. P. Gangsters Act is made out. 14. Sub-section (4) and (5) of Section 19 of U. P. Gangsters And Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act read thus:- "19 Modified application of 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 released 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 while on bail. (5) The limitation on granting of bail specified in sub-section (4) are in addition to the limitations under the Code. " 15. (5) The limitation on granting of bail specified in sub-section (4) are in addition to the limitations under the Code. " 15. In view of the specific provisions contained in sub-section (4) (b) of Section 19 of U. P. Gangsters Act, bail to a gangster can be granted, if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the gangster is not guilty of such offences and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In instant case, the applicant Yashpal Singh, being lodged in jail, has given threatening to the witness Harcharan on 22. 01. 2008 in the court premises, Jhansi that if he would depose against him, then he would get him and his entire family members killed after being released on bail. The F. I. R. regarding that incident of threatening was lodged by Harcharan on 23. 01. 2008 at P. S. Navbad, copy whereof has been filed by the complainant Rajesh Yadav as annexure with his supplementary counter affidavit dated 31. 01. 2008. Copy of that supplementary counter affidavit has been supplied to the applicants counsel, but the allegations made in the said F. I. R. have not been controverted on behalf of the applicant by filing rejoinder affidavit. If a person, who is lodged in jail, can threaten a witness in the court premises, how it can be ensured that he would not commit any offence while on bail. Some F. I. R. s. have been lodged by certain persons against the applicant Yashpal for illegally occupying their properties. Copies of such F. I. Rs. have been filed as annexures with the counter affidavit dated 20. 11. 2007 of the complainant Rajesh Yadav, against which no rejoinder affidavit has been filed form the side of the applicant. Some F. I. R. s. have been lodged by certain persons against the applicant Yashpal for illegally occupying their properties. Copies of such F. I. Rs. have been filed as annexures with the counter affidavit dated 20. 11. 2007 of the complainant Rajesh Yadav, against which no rejoinder affidavit has been filed form the side of the applicant. There is evidence in the Case Diary that prior to the incident, a raid was made by the police in the house of the applicant Yashpal Singh, from where illicit arms and ammunition in huge quantity were recovered and suspecting that the information about keeping the arms and ammunition by the applicant in his house was given by Ashok, cousin brother to the complainant, a threatening was given by the applicant prior to the incident that if he had to go to jail in the case of alleged recovery of arms and ammunition from his house, then remaining in jail itself, he would get his entire family members eliminated. 16. Therefore, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merit, licence cannot be granted to the applicant by admitting him to bail to commit more offences. 17. Consequently, the bail application of the applicant Yash Pal Singh is hereby rejected. The Trial Court concerned is again directed to conclude the trial of the applicant and other accused expeditiously, adopting the procedure laid drawn in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. .