Barkat Ali Zaidi, J. - (1.) THIS is third bail application of accused who was ini tially refused bail by order dated 1.10.2007 which is Annexure-A and which should be read as part of this order, because the facts are contained in that order and need not to be repeated.
(2.) HEARD Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.N. Yadav and Sri I.M. Khan, Advocates for the applicant and Sri Mewa Lal Shukla, Special Counsel for the State. The argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant, was that in the case about the occurrence which is pro ceeding against three other accused at Azamgarh, who have not been challaned under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 hereinaf ter called as the 'Act', five witnesses have turned hostile. The other side of the pic ture, is that, if the witnesses are turning hostile, while the accused is in jail, no one will dare to come forward, if he is released on bail. There is prima facie evidence about the fact of the construction of the complainant being erased to the ground by Bulldozer. The manner in which this demolition was done displayed. The mentality of a feudal landlord, which is wholly out of place in a country, governed by so cialists and the democratic constitution as proclaimed by preamble to our Con stitution. It is this mindset, which needs to be curbed and dislodged.
(3.) THE other argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant was that the two other accused (Anil Yadav and Ramesh Chauhan) who are also charged under the Provisions of the 'Act', have been released on bail and, as such, on ground of parity, the applicant also deserves bail. THEre can be no similarity between the two cases be cause the other two accused who, were granted bail, one was driving the Bulldozer and the other was a hired employed. THEy did not have any personal interest in the matter and they were acting only on the direction of the accused-applicant and his father. THEy were not impute with the land lordship mentality. THEir release on bail, cannot be a legitimate ground for re lease, of the present accused-applicant. The other argument by the learned Counsel for the applicant was that the applicant does not have any criminal history and there are no criminal cases, pending against him. He has been charged under the 'Act', only on the basis of present incident which is not justifiable. This single offence of the applicant, was of a kind which tendered to create panic alarm and terror in public and by which the accused-applicant and his father wanted to muzzle any protest, is by itself sufficient, to attract the 'Act1. There is a marked difference between the other crimes, the impact whereof is limited to individuals and a crime of this nature, which has far reaching dimensions.;