Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
Abdul Wazid – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8927 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 organized crime and anti-social activities - The court considers the applicant's criminal history, previous bail grants, and political motivations behind the charges - The court emphasizes the need for a fair trial and the gravity of the allegations - Bail application rejected. (Paras 3, 25, 26)
(B) Judicial Discretion - The court reiterates that the bail or acquittal in predicate offences does not automatically entitle the accused to bail under the Gangsters Act - The applicant's status as a flight risk and the seriousness of the charges weigh against granting bail. (Paras 18, 24)
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 four cases mentioned in the gang-chart, i.e. (i) 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, (ii) Case Crime No. 177 of 2019, under Sections 420, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. (iii) Case Crime No. 178 of 2019, under Sections 406, 342, 392, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and (iv) Case Crime No. 245 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C. registered 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. In Case Crime No. 178 of 2019 and Case Crime No. 245 of 2019, the applicant has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 5.6.2020 and 17.5.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 2727 of 2020 and 4077 of 2022, respectively. The copy of the said orders has been annexed as Annexure-4 & 5 to the affidavit. The applicant having been exonerated in one of the said predicate offences and granted interim protection in one case and having been granted anticipatory bail in other two cases, 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 al
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 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 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 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 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.
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
