Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16454 of 2025 Gaurav Chaudhary State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rishabh Agrawal, S.P.S. Chauhan, Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijay Shantam Tripurari Pal Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Shantam, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 57 of 2025, under Sections 2 & 3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station - Quarsi, District - Aligarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution under the Gangsters Act has been launched against the applicant on the basis of four criminal cases shown in the gang chart in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. Criminal history of thirteen more cases has been assigned to the applicant which has been explained in the affidavit. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. He is not a member of any gang. The applicant is not a previous convict. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.01.2025 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have 2 BAIL No. 16454 of 2025 vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and has placed reliance on the history-sheet of the applicant filed with the counter affidavit by stating that there are fifteen more cases pending against the applicant. The first case mentioned was for murder which was registered at Case Crime No. 1722 of 2014, u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 of IPC, P.S.- Quarsi, District- Aligarh in which the applicant had filed a forged high school mark-sheet and got himself declared juvenile. The informant has filed a recall application to the order declaring the applicant as juvenile. 7. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is a hardened criminal. There are three more cases of murder pending against the applicant i.e. (i) Case Crime No. 135 of 2016, u/s 147, 148, 149, 302 of IPC, P.S.- Quarsi, District- Aligarh; (ii) Case Crime No. 157 of 2016, u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 & 120-B of IPC, P.S.- Harduaganj, District- Aligarh; and (iii) Case Crime No. 1000 of 2016, u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B of IPC, P.S.- Quarsi, District- Aligarh, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said history-sheet of the applicant has been mentioned at page no. 9 of the counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant wherein it has been mentioned at Serial No. 8, the case crime number is not mentioned and it is simply written as year 2018 and that too u/s 3/4 of U.P. Goondas Act in which it is obvious that the period of externmination has lapsed already 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is also mentioned at Serial No. 16 that there is a history-sheet no. 22A of 2023 opened against the applicant which is pending. In all 17 cases have been assigned to the applicant including the cases mentioned in the gang chart. The opening of history-sheet does not fall within the category of criminal history. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has also claimed parity with the two co-accused persons, namely, Pritam and Saurav Chaudhary, who were also having criminal history to their credit, have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 16.4.2025 and 27.5.2025 passed in C.M.B.A. Nos. 12330 of 2025 and 15427 of 2025, respectively, as such, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in the light of the 3 BAIL No. 16454 of 2025 judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and also taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is on bail in all the seventeen cases, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant - Gaurav Chaudhary, involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- i. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. September 22, 2025 Siddhant (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad