High Court

3. This is the third bail application. First bail application i.e. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.1799 of 2022 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2022 with a direction to the trial court concerned to make endeavour to conclude the pending trial with expedition, and second bail application i.e. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.7063 of 2023 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2024 with direction to the trial court to expedite the trial.

4. While pressing the present bail application, learned counsel for the applicant stated that vide order dated 06.09.2022 thereby rejecting the first bail application, this Court had directed the trial court concerned to conclude the pending trial with expedition. However, till date, trial has not been concluded.

5. The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an innocent person and he has falsely been implicated in the case. It is further submitted that criminal history of 47 cases has been explained in para 20 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and from a bare perusal of this para it is apparent that in 39 cases the applicant has been enlarged on bail and in two cases the applicant has been acquitted by the trial court and in other two cases the interim protection has been granted by the concerned court and in another case final report has been submitted in favour of the applicant. Para No.20 further indicates that three cases including the present case is pending before this Court.

6. It is also stated that in other two cases arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.10 of 2023, under Section 2/3 of Act 1986, P.S.- Vikas Nagar, District- Lucknow and FIR/Case Crime No.202 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B I.PC., P.S.- Vikas Nagar, District - Lucknow the applicant has been released on bail as would appear from Annexure Nos.SA-3 and SA-4, copies of bail orders related to these cases, annexed to supplementary affidavit dated 14.06.2024.

7. It is also stated that the applicant is in jail since 11.06.2015 and various FIRs were lodged against the applicant including the FIR related to Act 1986 and in all the cases except this case related to Act 1986, the applicant has already been enlarged on bail.

8. He further stated that in F.I.R., in issue, the allegations with regard to disturbing the public order as also regarding gaining undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage of like nature against the applicant are vague. Further, stated that in absence of allegation concerning an act or omission on the part of an accused, covered by the definition of term "gang" and "gangster" as provided under Section 2 of the Act, no FIR is maintainable. In the instant case, the FIR is based upon the pending criminal case(s) and not upon any new allegation(s) or discovery of fact(s) having serious reflection on the society, for which purpose the Act was enacted.

9. He also stated that the provisions of the Act could not be used as a weapon to wreak vengeance or harass or intimidate citizens or to settle scores on political or other fronts.

10. He stated that in this case, it appears that the District Administration in order to show good work or to win laurels or seek appreciation from the higher authorities of Government or ruling party has invoked the provisions of the Act, which is unjustified.

11. He also stated that considering the facts of the case, as stated above, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence under the Gangsters Act and that he would not commit the offence while on bail. He also submitted that the applicant while on bail would not commit any crime/offence nor would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be.

12. It is further submitted that there is no apprehension that, if the facility of bail is granted to the applicant, he may flee from the course of law or he will not appear before the Court below, as also the evidence/material available on record is not strong enough to raise a presumption that the applicant is guilty of the offences mentioned in the gang chart.

13. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

14. Learned counsel for the victim as well as learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the victim has placed before this Court an order dated 22.11.2024 passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the case of CRM-M No.52940 of 2021 (Sumit Awasthi Vs. State of Haryana) whereby the Court stayed the release order of the applicant. However they fairly conceded that in the cases mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant is on bail.

15. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record as well as totality of fact and circumstances as also after taking note of Section 19(4)(b) of the Gangsters Act in light of the facts of the case and submission of counsel for the applicant to the effect that while on bail in this case, the applicant would not commit any crime/offence nor would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be as also the period of incarceration and also that criminal history has been explained, which could not be a sole ground to reject the prayer for bail, and also that till date trial has not been concluded in terms of the order of this Court dated

08.01.2024 and further, that the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is bleak and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

16. Let applicant- Sumit Awasthi be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime Number, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail. (2) Applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court. (3) Applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

17. Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Anand/-

3. This is the third bail application. First bail application i.e. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.1799 of 2022 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2022 with a direction to the trial court concerned to make endeavour to conclude the pending trial with expedition, and second bail application i.e. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.7063 of 2023 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2024 with direction to the trial court to expedite the trial.

4. While pressing the present bail application, learned counsel for the applicant stated that vide order dated 06.09.2022 thereby rejecting the first bail application, this Court had directed the trial court concerned to conclude the pending trial with expedition. However, till date, trial has not been concluded.

5. The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an innocent person and he has falsely been implicated in the case. It is further submitted that criminal history of 47 cases has been explained in para 20 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and from a bare perusal of this para it is apparent that in 39 cases the applicant has been enlarged on bail and in two cases the applicant has been acquitted by the trial court and in other two cases the interim protection has been granted by the concerned court and in another case final report has been submitted in favour of the applicant. Para No.20 further indicates that three cases including the present case is pending before this Court.

6. It is also stated that in other two cases arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.10 of 2023, under Section 2/3 of Act 1986, P.S.- Vikas Nagar, District- Lucknow and FIR/Case Crime No.202 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B I.PC., P.S.- Vikas Nagar, District - Lucknow the applicant has been released on bail as would appear from Annexure Nos.SA-3 and SA-4, copies of bail orders related to these cases, annexed to supplementary affidavit dated 14.06.2024.

7. It is also stated that the applicant is in jail since 11.06.2015 and various FIRs were lodged against the applicant including the FIR related to Act 1986 and in all the cases except this case related to Act 1986, the applicant has already been enlarged on bail.

8. He further stated that in F.I.R., in issue, the allegations with regard to disturbing the public order as also regarding gaining undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage of like nature against the applicant are vague. Further, stated that in absence of allegation concerning an act or omission on the part of an accused, covered by the definition of term "gang" and "gangster" as provided under Section 2 of the Act, no FIR is maintainable. In the instant case, the FIR is based upon the pending criminal case(s) and not upon any new allegation(s) or discovery of fact(s) having serious reflection on the society, for which purpose the Act was enacted.

9. He also stated that the provisions of the Act could not be used as a weapon to wreak vengeance or harass or intimidate citizens or to settle scores on political or other fronts.

10. He stated that in this case, it appears that the District Administration in order to show good work or to win laurels or seek appreciation from the higher authorities of Government or ruling party has invoked the provisions of the Act, which is unjustified.

11. He also stated that considering the facts of the case, as stated above, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence under the Gangsters Act and that he would not commit the offence while on bail. He also submitted that the applicant while on bail would not commit any crime/offence nor would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be.

12. It is further submitted that there is no apprehension that, if the facility of bail is granted to the applicant, he may flee from the course of law or he will not appear before the Court below, as also the evidence/material available on record is not strong enough to raise a presumption that the applicant is guilty of the offences mentioned in the gang chart.

13. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

14. Learned counsel for the victim as well as learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the victim has placed before this Court an order dated 22.11.2024 passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the case of CRM-M No.52940 of 2021 (Sumit Awasthi Vs. State of Haryana) whereby the Court stayed the release order of the applicant. However they fairly conceded that in the cases mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant is on bail.

15. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record as well as totality of fact and circumstances as also after taking note of Section 19(4)(b) of the Gangsters Act in light of the facts of the case and submission of counsel for the applicant to the effect that while on bail in this case, the applicant would not commit any crime/offence nor would try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be as also the period of incarceration and also that criminal history has been explained, which could not be a sole ground to reject the prayer for bail, and also that till date trial has not been concluded in terms of the order of this Court dated

08.01.2024 and further, that the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is bleak and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

16. Let applicant- Sumit Awasthi be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime Number, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail. (2) Applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court. (3) Applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

17. Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Anand/-