JUDGMENT Mukhtar Ahmad, J. Applicant- Rahul Yadav @ Satendra Yadav seeks bail in Case Crime No. 324 of 2014 under Section 3(1), U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Axtivities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. Bail has been opposed by learned on behalf of the State. submissions made on behalf of accused is that in the only case which has been made the basis to impose the provisions of Gangsters Act against the accused, he has already been granted bail by the Lower Court. Contention is that the provisions of the Act have been ill-used by the Police in order to perpetuate the detention of the applicant in jail anyhow even though the offence under the aforesaid Act is not made out. Submission is that the applicant is not a gangster and has never acted or conducted himself as such. Counsel for the applicant has also tried to demonstrate that the alleged previous offence which is said to have been committed by the applicant can at the most be said to be stray sporadic incidents of breach of law having no nexus with the definition of a gangster as has been provided in the Act. Further submission is that as the applicant has already been released on bail in the only case on which the provisions of the Act were imposed, it shall not be much justified to continue the incarceration of the applicant. Submission is also that the applicant is not guilty of having committed any offence under the Gangster Act. 3. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact of applicant having been released on bail in the solitary criminal case which has been shown to be the basis of imposing the provisions of the Act. 4. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. 5. Let the applicant-Sonu, involved in Case Crime No. 324 of 2014, u/s 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S .,Bharthana, District- Etawah be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions- 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. 2. He will cooperate in the trial bonafidely without seeking adjournments. 3. He shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 6. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.