The judgment emphasizes the duty of the State to protect personal liberty while considering the imposition of stringent laws, and the need for a balanced approach to maintain public order.

JUDGMENT :

Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The applicant is implicated in Case Crime No. 396 of 2018, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Hardoi, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 on the premise that one criminal case under Section 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act is pending against him and he being a member of an organised gang involved in the business of illegal sale of meat and skin of prohibited animals i.e. cow breed for financial gains and being involved in anti social activities, therefore, cannot be set free in the public interest as there is apprehension of commission of further crimes and thus, curtailing the liberty of accused applicant is imminently necessary.

3. It is argued that Gangster Act was previously inflicted upon the applicant on the basis of his criminal history and primarily having regard to case crime no. 211 of 2018 under Section 3/5/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act of which the charge sheet had already been filed against him before the trial court. The applicant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2018 passed in Bail No. 9633 of 2018.

4. The applicant has submitted that before he could be released pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 15.11.2018, the State authorities have again inflicted Gangster Act upon him taking shelter of another case of the same description registered as case crime no. 62/2018 wherein he has already been enlarged on bail by the trial court on 28.3.2018. This fact was in the knowledge of the State authorities even at the time of implicating the applicant under the Gangster Act previously i.e. when case crime no. 396 of 2018 under the same very Act was registered. In this background, it is argued that slapping of Gangster Act on the accused persons has recklessly become rampant by the State authorities even without having due regard to the object of law.

5. Learned AGA has strenuously objected against the prayer for bail on the ground that offences under the Cow Slaughter Act have now been incorporated under Section 2(b)(xvii) of Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 by notification dated 27.4.2016 and the State is well within its authority to invoke the provisions of the Gangster Act once the circumstances so warrant.

6. This Court may note that the only criminal history against the applicant is that of two cases of the same description of which trial is yet to culminate. There is no record of the applicant being a previous convict in any such offence. It would be a grave situation for an accused person if the trial under the Gangsters Act wins precedence by virtue of the mandate of Section 12 and ultimately the accused person is found innocent in the pending case. The emerging situation would be disastrous. It is in these circumstances that the administration must weigh the gravity of apprehension much deeper so that public order and security is secured by considering all the relevant material. In the present case, once there was a bail order granted by this Court, the State ought to have made an application before the competent Court for cancellation of the bail order taking a plea that some material which being vital had escaped attention of the Court. The State authorities can always bring on record relevant materials which the Court ought to have considered in the interest of justice. In the present case, however, the administrative authorities have acted in flagrant disregard of the order passed by this Court simply to frustrate the object of a judicial order. This is not the manner in which the object of a Special Law i.e. Gangsters Act is to be achieved in the name of public order or security. The State is duty bound to protect personal liberty of its citizens beyond doubt which is fundamentally guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. The Court may also note that trading in