JUDGMENT :

ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant and Sri V.K. Shahi, learned A.A.G. and Sri S.N. Tilhari, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The applicant has been implicated under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986 on the premise that five criminal cases are pending against him under Sections 392 and 411 I.P.C. and thus there is a clear apprehension at the end of the accused applicant of causing fear and terror in the society and the innocent citizens are not coming forward to lodge an F.I.R. against him. It is also alleged in the gangchart that the gang comprising of the accused applicant under the leadership of Suraj Yadav are quite active and if the accused applicant is set free, there is apprehension of commission of further crimes, thus, curtailing the liberty of the accused applicant is imminently necessary.

3. This Court may note that the past criminal history of the accused applicant of five criminal cases under Sections 392/411 I.P.C. is based on some recovery from him. The recovery made on 9.6.2018 gave rise to case crime no. 354 of 2018 under Sections 392/411 I.P.C. wherein the applicant was enlarged on bail by an order dated 13..9.2018 filed as annexure no.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. The recovery of other articles made on 9.6.2018 has been linked to case crime nos. 254 of 2018, 324 of 2018, 89 of 2018 and 298 of 2018. These are the F.I.Rs. registered much prior to the date of recovery made on 9.6.2018. The gang-chart does not record as to how the recovered items on 9.6.2018 can conclusively be linked to the aforesaid cases so as to form a definite opinion for inflicting the Gangsters Act against the accused applicant. It is submitted that a mere suspicion raised on the basis of recovery may not be a safe premise for inflicting the Gangsters Act against an accused who is yet to be found guilty after holding the trial.

4. It is further submitted that the applicant is not a previous convict, therefore, in any view of the matter, slapping of Gangsters Act upon the applicant on the basis of mere suspicion is misplaced and an abuse of the process of law.

5. Learned A.G.A. has strongly opposed the bail application on the ground that once the conduct of an accused person is found linked to so many criminal cases registered against him, this can be a sufficient base for the administration to invoke the provisions of Gangsters Act against an accused person as is well settled in a full Bench Judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit versus State of U.P. and another reported in AIR 1987 All 235. Having regard to the submissions putforth by learned counsel for the parties and regard being had to the entirety of material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the imposition of Gangsters Act calls for a deeper application of mind and the satisfaction of the authorities must base on a definite opinion against an accused person. In the present case, the applicant while under detention has been subjected to the rigours of Gangsters Act so as to prevent the operation of bail orders. Such a mechanism evolved by the authorities is malicious and does not serve the purpose of law. The offences to which the recovery has been linked cannot be assumed as anti-social unless the accused applicant is held guilty. The position becomes equally relevant when bail orders are passed in favour of an accused. In the circumstances where an accused has been granted bail or is not a previous convict, the matter deserves deeper scrutiny and cannot be dealt with superficially.

6. It is always open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail order as and when there is any larger apprehension to public security so that there is no misuse of liberty by the accused applicant released on bail.

7. It is also to be noted that the trial under Gangsters Act has a precedence over other cases by virtue of Section 12 of the Act. It is