IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that prior bail grants and the nature of allegations must be critically assessed to determine the necessity of continued detention under anti-social activity laws.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 457 of 2024, under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Instant FIR has been lodged against the applicant and the co-accused. FIR records that there are three cases lodged against the applicant. They are: (1) Case Crime No. 12 of 2024, under Section 25 (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 (“the Act”), Police Station Manglaur, (2) Case Crime No. 599 of 2023, under Sections 387, 506, 120B IPC and Section 15 (c), 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (“the UAPA”), 1967, Police Station Manglaur and; (3) Case Crime No. 1493 of 2022, under Section 193, 420, 120B, 506 IPC, Police Station Manglaur.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been granted bail in all the cases based on which, instant FIR is lodged. He would submit that all the individual acts may not be termed as disturbing the public order. He would submit that offence under the UAPA, which is one of the base offences in instant FIR has been lodged against the applicant.

5. It is argued that merely based on the alleged confession of the applicant and the co-accused, recorded in the investigation of FIR No. 284 of 2023, under Section 186, 353, 307/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Act and Section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Police Station Special Cell Delhi (“the Delhi case”) the applicant is implicated under UAPA. But, it is argued that in the Delhi case, the applicant has already been granted bail.

6. Learned counsel for the informant in one of the base offence, which is Case Crime No. 599 of 2023 under Sections 387, 506, 120B IPC and Section 15 (c), 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 of the UAPA, Police Station Manglaur would submit that the applicant was in touch with one terrorist, who stays in Canada and this is so revealed in the Delhi case, where the Investigating Officer has given a categorical report. In addition to it, it is argued that in one of the FIRs, i.e. FIR No. 6 of 2023, Police Station State Special Operations Cell Fazilka, Punjab (“the Punjab case”), one of the accused is Rajpreet Singh @ Raja Bamb, who stayed in the house of the applicant for a long period. Although, it is admitted that in the Punjab case, the applicant is not an accused.

7. Learned State counsel adopts the arguments, as advanced by learned counsel for the informant.

8. In all the base cases, the applicant has already been granted bail. Whatever material was available in the Delhi case, admittedly, based on that material the applicant has already been granted bail. In the Punjab case, the applicant is not an accused. If the base offences have been done with the individuals, can it be termed as disturbing the public order? These and many more questions would find answer during investigation or the trial, as the case may be.

9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.