Kripal Singh v. State of U.P

Accordingly, a First Information Report was lodged on

13.03.2014 against the applicant-Kripal Singh, Subhash Nishad and Ashok at Case Crime No. 16 of 2014, for the offence under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at police station Basai Arela, district Agra.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in all the five cases, on the basis of which, provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 have been invoked against him. It is next submitted that apart from above five cases, the applicant has criminal history of 02 other criminal cases being Case Crime No. 167 of 2016, under Sections 147, 141, 420, 467, 471 IPC and Section 15 D.A.A. Act, Police Station Chhatta, District Agra and Case Crime No. 01 of 2013, under Section 15 of D.A.A. Act, Police Station Pidhora, District Agra, in which also the applicant has been granted bail. It is further argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He is neither gang leader nor member of any gang. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.03.2025 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that co-accused Subhash Nishad is running a gang and co-accused Ashok and Kripal Singh (present applicant) are the members of his gang. It is further pointed out that the applicant is a history sheeter and apart from this 3 Bail Application No. 24822 of 2025 Kripal Singh Vs. State of U.P. case, he is involved in as many as 11 other criminal cases, which are as under: (i) Case Crime No. 01 of 2013, under Section 15 of D.A.A. Act, Police Station Pichaura, District Agra, (ii) Case Crime No. 94 of 2013, under Section 392 IPC, Police Station-Basai Arela, District-Agra, (iii) Case Crime No. 99 of 2013, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, Police Station-Basai Arela, District-Agra, (iv) Case Crime No. 248 of 2013, under Sections 392, 120B, 411 IPC and Section 12 Dacoity Affected Area Act, Police Station-Fatehabad, District-Agra, (v) Case Crime No. 252 of 2013, under Section 307 IPC and Section 12 Dacoity Affected Area Act, Police Station- Fatehabad, District-Agra, (vi) Case Crime No. 253 of 2013, under Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station-Fatehabad, District-Agra, (vii) Case Crime No. 427 of 2013, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station South Firozabad, District Firozabad. (viii) Case Crime No. 167 of 2016, under Sections 147, 141, 420, 467, 471 IPC, Police Station Chhata, District Agra, (ix) Case Crime No. 420 of 2016, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station Bah, District Agra, (x) Case Crime No. 361 of 2018, under Section 379 IPC, Police Station Fatehabad, District Agra, (xi) Case Crime No. 13 of 2021, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Pindoura, District Agra,

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that apart from the present case, the applicant has a long criminal history of 11 4 Bail Application No. 24822 of 2025 Kripal Singh Vs. State of U.P. other criminal cases as noted above, out of which, criminal history of only 07 cases (mentioned at Sl. Nos. (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (viii) of preceding paragraph 5) have been disclosed by him in the bail application.

7. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446, Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under: "We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed."

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508, after referring a catena of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the consideration of factors for grant of bail, held as under: "This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedent of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced herein 5 Bail Application No. 24822 of 2025 Kripal Singh Vs. State of U.P. above, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner."

9. The aforesaid judgement has further been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2021) 4 SCC 781. The fact in Sudha Singh’s case was that F.I.R. under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was registered against the accused Arun Yadav, in which as per gang chart, 16 cases were shown against him. The High Court granted bail vide order dated 08.05.2020 considering the fact that out of 16 cases, in 03 cases accused had been acquitted, in 08 cases accused had been granted bail, 04 cases ended in favour of the accused and in 01 case no F.I.R. was lodged against him. The said order dated 08.05.2020 granting bail to the accused Arun Yadav was challenged by Sudha Singh who is wife of the deceased, namely, Rajnarain Singh, who has been allegedly murdered by the accused. The Apex Court vide order dated 23.04.2021 allowed the appeal and set aside the order granting bail to the accused. The relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in para no. 7 are quoted herein below : 6 Bail Application No. 24822 of 2025 Kripal Singh Vs. State of U.P. “7. We find in this case that the High Court has overlooked several aspects, such as the potential threat to witnesses, forcing the trial court to grant protection. It is needless to point out that in cases of this nature, it is important that courts do not enlarge an accused on bail with a blinkered vision by just taking into account only the parties before them and the incident in question. It is necessary for courts to consider the impact that release of such persons on bail will have on the witnesses yet to be examined and the innocent members of the family of the victim who might be the next victims.”

10. It would not be out of place to mention that in the matter of bail merely disclosure of criminal history by the accused is not sufficient but proper explanation (about the nature of crime, role assigned to accused and status of investigation or trial as the case may be) of the same is also required to be mentioned in the bail application.

11. In the present case, the applicant has misused the process of law by not mentioning his complete criminal history and tried to mislead the Court. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hand and no material facts should be concealed. I am constrained to hold that more often the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants to achieve their nefarious design. I have no hesitation in saying that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court.

12. Having considered the factual aspect of the case with regard to granting bail to the applicant previously in other 7 Bail Application No. 24822 of 2025 Kripal Singh Vs. State of U.P. cases and the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I also find that every time whenever the applicant was granted bail, a condition was imposed that in future he will not indulge in any criminal case, but every time the applicant violated the said condition and got himself involved in criminal cases, hence I am of the considered view that he always misused the liberty of bail.

13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties as noted above, gravity of offence, role assigned to the applicant in base cases and severity of punishment, this Court in the light of criminal history of the applicant does not find reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Hence aforesaid mandatory requirement of Section 19 (4) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 does not stand satisfied.

14. In view of the above, the instant bail application stands rejected.

15. It is clarified that observations made herein above are limited to the extent of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence to be adduced uninfluenced by anything mentioned in the order.

16. The trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties in light of 8 Bail Application No. 24822 of 2025 Kripal Singh Vs. State of U.P. the provisions of Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

17. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court immediately for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Shubham

Accordingly, a First Information Report was lodged on

13.03.2014 against the applicant-Kripal Singh, Subhash Nishad and Ashok at Case Crime No. 16 of 2014, for the offence under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at police station Basai Arela, district Agra.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in all the five cases, on the basis of which, provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 have been invoked against him. It is next submitted that apart from above five cases, the applicant has criminal history of 02 other criminal cases being Case Crime No. 167 of 2016, under Sections 147, 141, 420, 467, 471 IPC and Section 15 D.A.A. Act, Police Station Chhatta, District Agra and Case Crime No. 01 of 2013, under Section 15 of D.A.A. Act, Police Station Pidhora, District Agra, in which also the applicant has been granted bail. It is further argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He is neither gang leader nor member of any gang. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.03.2025 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that co-accused Subhash Nishad is running a gang and co-accused Ashok and Kripal Singh (present applicant) are the members of his gang. It is further pointed out that the applicant is a history sheeter and apart from this 3 Bail Application No. 24822 of 2025 Kripal Singh Vs. State of U.P. case, he is involved in as many as 11 other criminal cases, which are as under: (i) Case Crime No. 01 of 2013, under Section 15 of D.A.A. Act, Police Station Pichaura, District Agra, (ii) Case Crime No. 94 of 2013, under Section 392 IPC, Police Station-Basai Arela, District-Agra, (iii) Case Crime No. 99 of 2013, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, Police Station-Basai Arela, District-Agra, (iv) Case Crime No. 248 of 2013, under Sections 392, 120B, 411 IPC and Section 12 Dacoity Affected Area Act, Police Station-Fatehabad, District-Agra, (v) Case Crime No. 252 of 2013, under Section 307 IPC and Section 12 Dacoity Affected Area Act, Police Station- Fatehabad, District-Agra, (vi) Case Crime No. 253 of 2013, under Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station-Fatehabad, District-Agra, (vii) Case Crime No. 427 of 2013, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station South Firozabad, District Firozabad. (viii) Case Crime No. 167 of 2016, under Sections 147, 141, 420, 467, 471 IPC, Police Station Chhata, District Agra, (ix) Case Crime No. 420 of 2016, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station Bah, District Agra, (x) Case Crime No. 361 of 2018, under Section 379 IPC, Police Station Fatehabad, District Agra, (xi) Case Crime No. 13 of 2021, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Pindoura, District Agra,

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that apart from the present case, the applicant has a long criminal history of 11 4 Bail Application No. 24822 of 2025 Kripal Singh Vs. State of U.P. other criminal cases as noted above, out of which, criminal history of only 07 cases (mentioned at Sl. Nos. (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (viii) of preceding paragraph 5) have been disclosed by him in the bail application.

7. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446, Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under: "We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed."

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508, after referring a catena of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the consideration of factors for grant of bail, held as under: "This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedent of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced herein 5 Bail Application No. 24822 of 2025 Kripal Singh Vs. State of U.P. above, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner."

9. The aforesaid judgement has further been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2021) 4 SCC 781. The fact in Sudha Singh’s case was that F.I.R. under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was registered against the accused Arun Yadav, in which as per gang chart, 16 cases were shown against him. The High Court granted bail vide order dated 08.05.2020 considering the fact that out of 16 cases, in 03 cases accused had been acquitted, in 08 cases accused had been granted bail, 04 cases ended in favour of the accused and in 01 case no F.I.R. was lodged against him. The said order dated 08.05.2020 granting bail to the accused Arun Yadav was challenged by Sudha Singh who is wife of the deceased, namely, Rajnarain Singh, who has been allegedly murdered by the accused. The Apex Court vide order dated 23.04.2021 allowed the appeal and set aside the order granting bail to the accused. The relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in para no. 7 are quoted herein below : 6 Bail Application No. 24822 of 2025 Kripal Singh Vs. State of U.P. “7. We find in this case that the High Court has overlooked several aspects, such as the potential threat to witnesses, forcing the trial court to grant protection. It is needless to point out that in cases of this nature, it is important that courts do not enlarge an accused on bail with a blinkered vision by just taking into account only the parties before them and the incident in question. It is necessary for courts to consider the impact that release of such persons on bail will have on the witnesses yet to be examined and the innocent members of the family of the victim who might be the next victims.”

10. It would not be out of place to mention that in the matter of bail merely disclosure of criminal history by the accused is not sufficient but proper explanation (about the nature of crime, role assigned to accused and status of investigation or trial as the case may be) of the same is also required to be mentioned in the bail application.

11. In the present case, the applicant has misused the process of law by not mentioning his complete criminal history and tried to mislead the Court. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hand and no material facts should be concealed. I am constrained to hold that more often the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants to achieve their nefarious design. I have no hesitation in saying that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court.

12. Having considered the factual aspect of the case with regard to granting bail to the applicant previously in other 7 Bail Application No. 24822 of 2025 Kripal Singh Vs. State of U.P. cases and the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I also find that every time whenever the applicant was granted bail, a condition was imposed that in future he will not indulge in any criminal case, but every time the applicant violated the said condition and got himself involved in criminal cases, hence I am of the considered view that he always misused the liberty of bail.

13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties as noted above, gravity of offence, role assigned to the applicant in base cases and severity of punishment, this Court in the light of criminal history of the applicant does not find reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Hence aforesaid mandatory requirement of Section 19 (4) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 does not stand satisfied.

14. In view of the above, the instant bail application stands rejected.

15. It is clarified that observations made herein above are limited to the extent of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence to be adduced uninfluenced by anything mentioned in the order.

16. The trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties in light of 8 Bail Application No. 24822 of 2025 Kripal Singh Vs. State of U.P. the provisions of Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

17. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court immediately for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Shubham