Abbas … v. State of U.P
Case Details
Reserved on : 18.09.2025 Delivered on : 26.09.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9764 of 2025 Abbas …..Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. …..Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi : G.A. Court No. - 33 HON’BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1.
Legal Reasoning
decided on 12.05.2025 and judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Asim @ Hassim vs. State of U.P. and another, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18729 of 2023, decided on 02.12.2023. 5. Learned A.G.A. while opposing the bail application submitted that the applicant has a long history of 10 criminal cases pending against him. He further contended that no new facts have come to light nor there has been change of any circumstances, thus, present bail application is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 4 CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9764 of 2025 7. The question with regard to fresh argument to be considered in second bail application on those very facts that were available to the accused while his earlier bail application was moved and rejected, came for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in case of Satya Pal vs. State of U.P., 1998 (37) ACC 287. Division Bench relying upon the decision of Apex Court in case of State of Maharastra vs. Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292 held as under:- "4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the cases which were cited before the learned single Judge as also before us. We think that the point is well settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292. In the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court while disapproving grant of bail by a learned single Judge of the High Court just after two days when a number of bail applications had been dismissed by another learned single Judge of that Court the Supreme Court also considered various other aspects relating to the question as to under what circumstances an application for bail should be considered even a previous application for bail had been rejected. It will be proper to. quote relevant passages from paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment :- 6. ...The question then is whether there was justification for releasing the respondent on bail to facilitate yogic exercises under expert guidance at his residence, albeit under conditions of surveillance, even though Puranik, J. had rejected a more or less similar prayer only two days before? Should this Court refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution even if it is satisfied that the jurisdiction was wrongly exercised. 7. Liberty occupies a place on pride in our socio-political order. And who knew the value of liberty more than the founding fathers of our Constitution whose liberty was curtailed time and again under Draconian Laws by the colonial rulers. That is why they provided in Article 21 of the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according the procedure established by law. It follows therefore that the personal liberty of an individual can be curbed by procedure established by law. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is one such procedural law. The law permits curtailment of liberty of antisocial and anti-national elements. Article 22 casts certain obligations on the authorities in the event of arrest of an individual accused of the commission of a crime against society or the Nation. In cases of under-trial charged with the commission of an offence or offences the Court is generally called upon to decide whether to release him on bail or to commit him to jail. This decision has to be made, mainly in non- bailable cases, having regard to the nature, of the crime, the circumstances in which it was committed, the background of the, accused, the possibility of his jumping bail, the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on society and the possibility of retribution, etc. In the present case the successive bail applications preferred by the respondent 5 CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9764 of 2025 were rejected on merits having regard to the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed. Once such application No. 36 of 1989 was rejected by Suresh, J. himself. Undeterred the respondent went on preferring successive applications for bail. All such pending bail applications were rejected by Puranik, J. by a common order on 6th June, 1989. Unfortunately Puranik, J. was not aware of the pendency of yet another bail application No. 995/ 89 otherwise he would have disposed it of by the very same common order. Before the ink was dry on Puranik J.'s order, it was upturned by the impugned order. It is not as if the Court passing the impugned order was not aware of the decision of Puranik, J. in fact there is a reference to the same in the impugned order. Could this be done in the absence of new facts and changed circumstances ? What is important to realise is that in Criminal Application No. 375 of 1989, the respondent had made an identical request as is obvious from one of the prayers (extracted earlier) made therein. Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change, in the fact situation. And, when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes, which are of little or no consequence. Between the two orders there was a gap of only two days and it is nobody's case that during these two days drastic changes had taken place necessitating the release of the respondent on bail. Judicial discipline, propriety and comity demanded that the impugned order should not have been passed reversing all earlier orders including the one rendered by Puranik, J, only a couple of days before, in the absence of any substantial change in the fact-situation. In such cases it is necessary to act with restraint and circumspection so that the process of the& Court is not abused by a litigant and an impression does not gain ground that the litigant has either successfully avoided one judge or selected another to secure an order, which had hitherto eluded him. In such a situation the proper course, we think, is to direct that; the matter! be placed before the same learned Judge who disposed of the earlier applications. Such a practice or convention would prevent abuse of the process of Court inasmuch as it will prevent an impression being created that a litigant is avoiding or selecting a Court to secure an order to his liking. Such a practice would also discourage the filing of successive bail applications without change of circumstances. Such a practice if adopted would be conducive to judicial discipline and would also save the Court's time as a judge familiar with the facts would be able to dispose of the subsequent application with despatch. It will also result in consistency. In this view that we take we are fortified by the observations of this Court in paragraph 5 of the judgment in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan (1987) 2 SCC 684. For the above reasons we are of the view that there was no justification for passing the impugned order in the absence of a substantial change in the fact-situation. That is what prompted Shetty, J. to describe the impugned order as 'a bit out of the ordinary.' Judicial restraint demands that we say no more. 6 CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9764 of 2025 5. A reading of the above mentioned passage from the judgment of the Supreme court makes it clear that there is no bar in successive bail applications being moved for consideration by the Courts. However the Supreme Court clearly ob-served that the practice suggested would also discourage filing of successive bail applications without change of circumstances. This observation makes it clear that it should be only when some new facts and circumstances have developed after rejection of the previous bail application then only the second bail application should be considered on merit. The learned single Judge who referred this case to be considered by the Division Bench had made the following observations in his referring order;- In my view this direction of the Supreme Court is intended at maintaining some degree of finality even to interim orders and not keeping it open to frequent change unless substantial changes in fact-situation are indicated. Otherwise our Courts including' superior Courts would tie flooded with frivolous repeated prayers for bail as new arguments and new twists on same facts would always be advanced by legal experts. It is therefore, necessary that a decision should be given by a higher Bench on the question if at all it would be open for a Court to allow fresh arguments on the same facts after a former prayer was although specifically the points urged in the subsequent applications were not considered. We are in complete agreement with the views expressed by the learned single Judge and agree that a second bail application cannot be entertained on the same facts after a formal prayer was rejected although subsequently points urged in the subsequent bail applications were not considered. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant strenuously wanted to support the view taken by the learned single Judge in the case of Gama v. State of U.P., 1986 ( 23 ) ACC 339. We are not inclined to accept the view taken by the learned single Judge in the said case. It is not uncommon but rather almost an accepted norm that the High Courts while rejecting the bail application do not give reasons for such rejection. Reasons are generally not given as observations tend to influence and affect the trial in pending cases. Therefore, the following observations of the learned single Judge in the case of Gama v. State of U.P.(supra) does not lay down the correct law . Even though it may be second or third bail application, but unless it is apparent from a reading of the first bail order that the point urged in the subsequent bail applications was also considered and rejected, it cannot be said that the point urged in the second or third bail application would be deemed to have been considered in the first bail application just by implication.
Arguments
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is the second bail application filed by applicant - Abbas who is involved in Case Crime No. 13 of 2024, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Golhaura, District-Siddharth Nagar, seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. 3. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20642 of 2024 was dismissed vide order dated 07.08.2024 and following order was passed:- “1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. 2. The applicant before this Court has a long criminal history of 9 cases apart from the present case under the Gangster Act, which are as under:- "I. Case Crime No.239 of 2010, under Section 3/5A/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, Police Station Purandar Pur, District- Maharajganj. II. Case Crime No.149 of 2019, under Section 429 of IPC and Section 3/5A/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and 2 CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9764 of 2025 Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, Police Station Kotwali, District- Basti. III. Case Crime No.106 of 2020, under Section 401 IPC, Police Station Trilokpur, District- Siddharth Nagar. IV. Case Crime No.107 of 2020, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 207 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station Trilokpur, District- Siddharth Nagar. V. Case Crime No.138 of 2020, under Section 3(1) of Gangster Act, Police Station Trilokpur, District- Siddharth Nagar. VI. Case Crime No.28 of 2022, under Section 3/5A/8 of of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, Police Station Golauhra, District- Siddharth Nagar. VII. Case Crime No.24 of 2023, under Section 174 Ka IPC, Police Station Golauhra, District- Siddharth Nagar. VIII. Case Crime No.25 of 2023, under Section 3/5A/8 of of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, Police Station Gaura Chauki, District- Balrampur. IX. Case Crime No.22 of 2024, under Sections 307, 504, 506, 34 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Golauhra, District- Siddharth Nagar." 3. Earlier, the Gangster Act was imposed upon the applicant being Case Crime No.138 of 2020. Thereafter, Case Crime No.28 of 2022 was registered against him under Cow Slaughter Act. Thereafter, Case Crime No.24 of 2023 was registered, then again a case under the Cow Slaughter Act being Case Crime No.25 of 2023 was registered against the applicant. In 2024, another Case Crime No.22 of 2024 was registered under Sections 307, 504 and 506, 34 IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the imposition of second Gangster Act upon the applicant is not justified on the ground that he was not there when the two cases under the Cow Slaughter Act was imposed upon him and the case as registered in the year 2024 is of no injury case and is alleged to be a case of firing upon the police party. It is further submitted that the case being Case Crime No.22 of 2024 has been imposed upon the applicant subsequent to the imposition of Gangster Act. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail application and submitted that the applicant has a long criminal history of 10 cases including the present case under the Gangster Act. 6. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Section 19(4)(b) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 provides as under: "(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 3 CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9764 of 2025 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. From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the Court before granting the bail has to record the reasons. The Gangster Act is a special legislation, and the Court while granting the bail has to record its satisfaction that the applicant will not commit any crime, once he is released on bail. 8. In the instant case, the Gangster Act was imposed upon the applicant in the year 2020 being Case Crime No.138 of 2020. After the applicant was released on bail he had again committed crime and twice he was charged under the Cow Slaughter Act in the year 2022 and 2023. Moreover, two other cases are registered against the applicant, one being Case Crime No.24 of 2023 and other being Case Crime No.22 of 2024. 9. From the perusal of record, I find that no case for bail is made out as in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will commit crime again and no satisfaction can be recorded under Section 19(4)(b) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 10. Hence, the bail application of applicant- Abbas involved in Case Crime No.13 of 2024, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Golhaura, District- Siddharth Nagar is hereby rejected.” 4. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that applicant is in jail since 05.03.2024 and if he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Vinay Kumar Gupta, Rajaram Kesharwani and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another, Application U/S 482 No. 20422 of 2024,
Decision
We accordingly overrule this view taken by the learned single Judge in Gama's case (supra)." 8. In the present case, earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 07.08.2024 on the ground that applicant was having a long criminal history of 10 cases, and if released would be a threat to the society at large. 7 CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9764 of 2025 9. As no fresh argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the applicant to show any change of circumstances or bringing into light some new facts, this Court finds that no interference is required for enlarging the applicant on bail, as the point canvassed was already available to the applicant at the time when his earlier bail applicant was being considered. The judgments relied upon by counsel for applicant are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 10. In view of above, bail application of applicant stands rejected. September 26, 2025 V.S. Singh (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal) Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad