IMPORTANT POINT
The right to bail cannot be undermined by arbitrary surety demands, particularly for marginalized individuals, necessitating consideration of socioeconomic status by trial courts.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Matter is taken up in the revised call.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken in the record.

3. By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.93 of 2021 at Police Station-Etmadpur, District-Agra under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act. The applicant is in jail since 13.09.2020.

4. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 09.07.2024.

5. The following arguments made by Shri Ali Jamal Khan, learned amicus curiae on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

I. The applicant has been granted bail in the three criminal cases depicted in the gang chart, namely, (i) Case Crime No.219 of 2020 under Sections 363, 364-A, 302, 201, 34, 120B IPC, P.S. Etmadpur, District-Agra, (ii) Case Crime No.223 of 2020 under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Etmadpur, District-Agra and (iii) Case Crime No.225 of 2020 under Sections 379, 411, 414, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Etmadpur, District-Agra.

II. The applicant has explained his criminal history.

III. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or re-offending.

6. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

7. Let the applicant-Arman be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

8. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023. The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.

9. The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Agra shall ensure that appropriate legal aid is made available to the applicant for purposes of submitting sureties and completion of other formalities for being set forth at liberty.

10. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Agra for onward communication to the applicant who is in jail, and for assisting the applicant in the manner stated above.

11. Before parting, the Court would like to notice the other submissions made by Shri Ali Jamal Khan, learned amicus curiae on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has also been imprisoned in the two more criminal cases registered as Case Crime No.226 of 2020 under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, P.S. Etmadpur, District-Agra and Case Crime No.225 of 2020 under Sections 379, 411 IPC, P.S. Malpura, District-Agra and has been granted bail in the aforesaid cases by the learned trial court. However, he has not been released on bail due to his inability to furnish sureties.

12. This appears to be a serious matter. The large number of the persons who belong to marginalized sections of the society or financially destitute are unable to arrange or provide sureties fixed arbitrarily by the learned trial courts. To deal with this situation the constitutional Courts have constantly held that the right of bail cannot be defeated by arbitrary