IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that bail should not be granted lightly in serious cases, particularly where the accused has a significant criminal history and the allegations are grave.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Indra Bhan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 83 of 2022, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Mirzapur, District-Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The FIR was instituted against the applicant and other co-accused persons at police station Mirzapur, district Saharanpur on 9.4.2022 at 11:30 p.m. alleging as follows:

(i) The accused person Hazi Iqbal @ Balla is stated to be the gang leader and the applicant alongwith five other named accused persons are stated to be the members of interstate district gang involved in several financial and corporeal crimes.

(ii) They are stated to be involved in threatening the people to cause their death, extortion and extracting illegal money. They are also stated to be involved in smuggling of wood, illegal mining and illegal possession of public land, as such, have caused terror, fear and sense of insecurity in public at large.

(iii) The applicant and all the co-accused persons are stated to be highly connected politically, and as such, they were booked under the UP Gangsters Act.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

6. The instant FIR is just misuse of the provisions of Gangsters Act as the applicant has been implicated in the instant case only on the basis of two cases mentioned in the gang-chart, i.e. Case Crime No. 52 of 2018, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 504, 506, 447 I.P.C. Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Case Crime No. 177 of 2019, under Sections 420, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. at Police Station-Mirzapur, District-Saharanpur.

7. After thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer was pleased to file closure report on 29.1.2018 in the said Case Crime No. 52 of 2018, exonerating the applicant. The closure report dated 29.1.2018 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. The criminal proceedings against the applicant arising out of the said Case Crime No. 177 of 2019 have been stayed by this Court, until further orders, vide order dated 19.2.2021 passed in Application U/s 482 No. 2619 of 2021. The copy of the order of this Court dated 19.2.2021 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed with bail application. The applicant having been exonerated in one of the said predicate offences and having been granted interim protection in another case, entitle him for bail in the instant case, as no case is made out against him.

8. The applicant had filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition before this Court and he was granted interim protection till submission of final report in the instant case.

9. In the instant case, similarly placed co-accused person Naseem has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.1.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54879 of 2022, as such, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

10. Much reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 INSC 690 wherein the Supreme Court has laid down as follows:

“98. Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial dispensation. Persons accused with same offence shall never be treated differently either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by an exercise of discretion despite being a judici