IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
Mohd. Afzal – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8930 of 2023
Decided On : 11-11-2024
(A) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 2/3 - Bail application - The applicant seeks bail during the pendency of trial for alleged involvement in gang-related activities, claiming false implication and political motivation behind the charges. The court emphasizes the need for reasonable grounds for bail under Section 19(4) of the Act. (Paras 3, 24, 25)
(B) Judicial Precedent - The court refers to the Supreme Court's ruling in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, emphasizing uniformity in judicial decisions and the necessity for equal treatment of similarly accused individuals. (Paras 10)
(C) Criminal History - The applicant's extensive criminal history is noted, including previous cases quashed by higher courts, which the applicant argues should warrant bail based on parity with co-accused. (Paras 11, 12)
(D) Court's Findings - The court finds no reasonable grounds to believe the applicant is not guilty, citing ongoing criminal activities and the risk of flight due to familial connections with the main accused. (Paras 24, 25) (E) Result - Bail application rejected. (Para 25)
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:
(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 one case 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, 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 applicant having been exonerated in the said predicate offence, 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 in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 INSC 690 wherein the Supreme Court has laid down as follows:
11. A criminal history of 15 cases have been shown against the applicant of which 04 cases have been quashed by the Supreme Court and the same number of cases have been quashed by this High Court. The applicant has been granted anticipatory bail in 01 case and he has been granted regular bail in 02 cases. The applicant has not been nominated in other 02 cases. As such, the applicant is entitled for bail in the l
Ashok Kumar Dixit vs. State of U.P. AIR 1987 All 235
Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal
Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira
Dharmendra Kirthal vs. State of U.P. (2013) 8 SCC 368
Eastern Spinning Mills Shri Virendra Kumar Sharda v. Rajiv Poddar
Farhana vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2024 INSC 118
Hussain and Another vs. Union of India
Kamlesh Pathak v. State of U.P. 2024 SCC Online All 2669
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar
Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah
State of Maharashtra vs. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty
State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak
State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal
Union of India v. Thamisharasi
The court ruled that the applicant's extensive criminal history and ongoing risks justified the denial of bail under the U.P. Gangster Act, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds for bail.
The court emphasized that bail under the U.P. Gangsters Act requires reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, which the applicant failed to establish.
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.
The court ruled that prior bail or acquittal in predicate offences does not guarantee bail under the Gangsters Act, emphasizing the gravity of allegations and flight risk.
The court denied bail based on the applicant's extensive criminal history and the absence of reasonable grounds to believe the applicant would not commit further offences if released.
The right to a speedy trial must be balanced against the gravity of the offence and potential risks to public safety, even in cases of prolonged judicial custody.
Bail – Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. does not exclude offences under NDPS Act – Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.