Back
KRISHAN PAHAL
Mohd. Afzal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
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 smuggli
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
