Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(All) 2307
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J
Imran Mulla – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 17326 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Satya Narayan Gupta, Yogendra Pal Singh
For the Respondents: G.A.
Second bail applications require new grounds or facts; prior criminal history critically influences the court’s decision on bail.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act - Section 19(4)(b) - Bail Application rejected for lack of new grounds or facts after prior rejection, considering the criminal history of the applicant and the risk to society - Earlier bail applications had been rejected based on severity and ongoing nature of past offenses. (Paras 6, 9, 10)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Second bail applications should provide new grounds; otherwise, they will not be considered - Repeats of arguments made in previous applications do not qualify as new grounds. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is charged under the U.P. Gangster Act with a significant history of multiple criminal offenses and has been incarcerated since May 2024 - Previous bail applications rejected due to serious allegations and history of releasing during prior proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The applicant's extensive criminal background prohibits any reasonable expectation of not reoffending if released on bail - The interests of public safety take precedence.
Issues: The core issue was whether new grounds existed to justify the second bail application, given extensive prior criminal history.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the applicant had not demonstrated any new facts or changed circumstances sufficient to merit reconsideration of bail - Established that the applicant poses a continued threat to society.
Result: Bail application is rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing of bail application and the nature of the offense. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicant's claim of not misusing bail is contested by severity of accused's history. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. judicial consideration of prior bail rejection and its grounds. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. details of prior cases and the need for compliance with law in bail considerations. (Para 7) |
| 5. court's conclusion about the unsatisfactory evidence for bail under gangster act. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. final ruling that no case for bail is made out. (Para 10) |
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This is the second bail application of the applicant. By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 31 of 2024, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter called as "Gangster Act"), Police Station- Partapur, District- Meerut, during the pendency of trial.
3. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28829 of 2024 was dismissed on 27.02.2025 and following order was passed:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. By means of this application, applicant Imran Mulla, who is involved in Case Crime No. 31 of 2024, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter called as “Gangster Actâ€), Police Station Partapur, District Meerut, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that two cases have been shown in the gang-chart, in which applicant has already been enlarged on bail. He further contended that there are nine more criminal cases registered against the applicant in which the applicant has also been enlarged on bail. It is further contended that the applicant is in jail since 03.05.2024 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail by submitting that this is the second time that the Gangster Act has been imposed upon the applicant. Earlier Gangster Act was also imposed upon the applicant in the year 2015 in which the applicant was released on bail on 16.05.2017. He submits that thereafter the applicant has been charged under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act as well as offences under Sections 379, 380, 392 IPC. He further submits that no compliance of Section 19(4)(b) of Gangster Act has been done so as to bring before the Court that the applicant would not commit any further crime.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. Before adverting to decide the bail application, a cursory glance of provision of Section 19(4)(b) of Gangster Act is necessary for better appreciation of the case, which reads as under;
"Section 19(4)(b):
Where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail."
6. From reading of Section 19 (4) (b), it is clear that before proceeding to grant bail in the Gangster Act, which is a special legislation, and Sub- section (4) of Section 19, which is a non-obstante clause, clearly provides that the Court before granting the bail to record the reasons that applicant would not commit any crime in future.
7. The criminal history of the applicant as given in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit is as under;
"(i). Case Crime No. 136 of 2023 under section 3/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S.- Partappur, District- Meerut.
(ii) Case Crime No. 144 of 2023 under section 307/34 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.- Partapur, District-- Meerut.
(iii) Case Crime No. 585 of 2018 under section 120-B, 347, 392, 411, 506 IPC, P.S.- Partappur, District- Meerut.
(iv) Case Crime No. 137 of 2017 under section 25 Arms Act, P.S.- Bhawanpur, District-
