Shashi Kant Gupta, J.;- Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. U. N. Sharma , Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S. K. Misra and Mr. R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri M. L. Shukla, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely roped in on the basis of a solitary case in which the investigation was pending and no report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the police when the provisions of Gangster Act was invoked. It is further submitted that the applicant has already been granted bail by this court in the said Case Crime No. 513 of 2010, under Sections 395, 397, 307, 364, 323, 504, 506, 325, 427, 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh on 25.2.2011 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. 1256 of 2011 by a detailed order which, interalia, runs as under: "Through a detailed FIR the prosecution has come forward to make certain criminal allegations against the applicant. It seems that during the course of campaigning by arch rival parties of the State some scuffle took place before the Kotwali, Kunda. It is also alleged that in front of the Kotwali, Kunda indiscriminate firing has taken place and thereafter certain persons belonging to the informant party were abducted by the applicant and others. It is not disputed that ample number of police personnel were present on the spot. How the incident as alleged by the prosecution could take place in presence of the police personnel and why the police failed to take any action in time to prevent the aforesaid incident. It is common knowledge that when there is campaigning and two parties are face to face in the campaigning often certain scuffle or sloganeering takes place and in such circumstances there is melee on the spot. FIR has been lodged at the behest of the person belonging to party, which is fully supported by the administration. The applicant happens to be the person belonging to the opposition party and it appears that certain facts have been exaggerated to give colour to the incident as alleged in the FIR. FIR has been lodged at the behest of the person belonging to party, which is fully supported by the administration. The applicant happens to be the person belonging to the opposition party and it appears that certain facts have been exaggerated to give colour to the incident as alleged in the FIR. The abductees have returned back to their home although it is alleged that they were abducted by the applicant and others. Since no person is missing and neither any person has died and there is a cross version by the other side, it has to be decided during the course of trial as to who is the aggressor and who's version is correct after the evidence is adduced before the trial court. At this stage, the prosecution case in the facts and circumstances of the case is doubtful as many things stated in the FIR after investigation have been found to be incorrect. The injuries received by the prosecution side are also minor in nature. In these circumstances, the prosecution case does not appear to be as correct as set up in the FIR and a cloud of doubt hangs upon the prosecution case. How the abductees were abducted by these persons in presence of the police is also not understandable. There is no allegation that the police persons were out numbered. The story of snatching the weapons also does not stand to reason as it was not possible in presence of the police when the incident has taken place in front of Kotwali Kunda." 4. It was further submitted that so far as the criminal history of the applicant is concerned, in para 4 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the bail applicant, details of the current status of criminal cases registered against the applicant has been given and a perusal of the same, indicates that out of those cases, in most of the applicant has been either acquitted or final report has been submitted and in some of the cases the State has itself proceeded to withdraw the same, as such the the criminal history of the applicant , which is being argued and emphasised by the State counsel is not of much significance and have no bearing to the merits of the present case. 5. 5. In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a decision rendered in the case of Dinesh Dalmia Vs. C.B.I. : (2007)8 SCC 770 wherein the Apex Court in para 38 has observed as follows:- "It is well settled principle of interpretation of statute that it is to be read in its entirety. Construction of a Statute should be made in a manner so as to give effect to all the provisions thereof. Remand of an accused is contemplated by Parliament at two stages; pre- cognisance and post- cognizance. Even in the same case, depending upon the nature of charge sheet filed by the investigating officer in terms of section 173 of the Code, a cognizance may be taken as against the person against whom an offence is said to have been made out as against whom no such offence has been made out even when investigation is pending. So long a charge sheet is not filed within the meaning of sub section (2) of section 173 of the Code, investigation remains pending. It, however, does not preclude an investigating officer, as noticed herein before, to carry on further investigation despite filing of a police report, in terms of sub section (8) of Section 173 of the Code." 6. It was further submitted that in view of the principles laid down in the aforementioned case, the provisions of Gangsters Act could not have been invoked and launching of the present prosecution merely on the basis of a solitary case and that too in which the investigation was going on and no report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the police on the date when the provision of Gangsters Act was invoked, is nothing but a colourable exercise of powers which emanate from the political vendetta and out of personal vindictiveness. 7. It was further submitted that the acquittal orders in favour of the applicant, references of which have been given in the supplementary affidavit, have been passed on merits and operate retrospectively to wipe out the charges levelled against the applicant in those cases, therefore, the cases in which the applicant has been acquitted ought not to have been taken into account to slap the present case against him. It was next submitted that the cases withdrawn by the State Government prima facie supports the contention that they were not legally tenable cases and also they ended in acquittal. As such the cases withdrawn by the State Government also could not be taken into account for the purposes of the present case. 8. Mr. U. N. Sharma, further submitted that the co accused Nanhey Singh alias Narendra Singh and Akshaya Pratap Singh, whose case stands on the same footing have been granted bail by this court on 28.3.2011 and 30.3.2011 in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No. 5540/11 and 5376/11 respectively, as such the applicant also deserves to be bailed out. 9. Mr. Mewa Lal Shukla, learned AGA, on the other hand, while opposing the bail submitted that no doubt the applicant has been acquitted in many cases but the acquittal orders were passed on account of the fact that the witnesses stood hostile. Mr. Shukla lastly submitted that according to sub-section (4) (b) of section 19 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 the applicant can be released on bail only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the offence under section 2/3 (1) of the Act and there is no likelihood of his committing any offence while on bail. Bail can not be granted only on the ground that the applicant has made out a prima facie case on the basis that he has been acquitted or is on bail in other criminal cases. 10. At this stage, it is not proper to express any opinion regarding the merits of the case. However, it may be clarified that the provisions of sub-section (4) (b) of section 19 of the Act can not be so interpreted as to make the provisions of bail redundant. Therefore, a pragmatic and reasonable approach should be adopted in considering bail matters under the aforesaid Act. When the applicants have been acquitted in most of the cases either on merits or on account of withdrawal from the prosecution and they are on bail in remaining cases including the case crime no. 513 of 2010, it can be inferred that the applicant has made out a case for bail in terms of section 19 (4) (b) of the Act, therefore, it is just and expedient to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. 513 of 2010, it can be inferred that the applicant has made out a case for bail in terms of section 19 (4) (b) of the Act, therefore, it is just and expedient to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. More so, there does not appear to be any reasonable ground to believe that the applicant will tamper with the witnesses or abscond, if released on bail. 11. Keeping in view the nature of offence and evidence, complicity of the accused, the severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 12. Let the applicant Raghu Raj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya involved in the case crime no.02 of 2011, under section 2/3 (1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, police station Kunda, district Pratapgarh, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and also subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him; 2. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused; 3. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 13. In case of breach of any of the above three conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.