The court emphasized the balance between individual liberty and societal safety in granting bail under certain conditions as established in statutory law and precedent.

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the date of detention in the bail application.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

3. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Rehan seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.285 of 2025, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur, during pendency of trial.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to the gang chart the applicant is said to have been involved in only one criminal case in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. Apart from the one case, the applicant has criminal history of five more cases explained in para-7 of the bail application in which he has also been enlarged on bail. He has falsely been implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. It is argued that co-accused Rakesh Yadav has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23325 of 2025. The applicant is not a member of any gang. He is languishing in jail since 20.05.2025 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the applicant is a member of gang and habitual of committing crime. He further submitted that investigation is going on. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar anti- social activities and will misuse the bail by extending threat and intimidation to the prosecution witnesses.

6. Section 19(4) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)Act, 1986 reads as follows:-

"(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless--

(a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (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."

7. In light of Section 19(4) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, I have considered the material evidence available on record, the nature of offence which has been mentioned in the gang-chart and the criminal background of the accused-applicant.

8. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb , (2021) 3 SCC 713 : 2021 (1) Supreme 525 , it was held that in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge t