In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and Another

2-By means of this application, applicant-Gopali who is involved in Case Crime No. 187 of 2024, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Nasirpur, District Firozabad seeks enlargement on bail during pendency of trial. 3-Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that on the basis of two criminal cases registered against the applicant being case crime no. 02 of 2024, under Sections 323, 380, 411 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nasirpur, District Firozabad and case crime no. 08/24, under Sections 399, 402, 307 I.P.C. and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Nasirpur, District Firozabad, proceedings under the provisions of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was initiated against the applicant. Accordingly, a first information report was lodged on 28.09.2024 against the applicant-Gopali and four others namely Iqbal @ Pahalwan, Ishtiyak @ Pathan, Bablu and Ratipal @ Thakur for the offence under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station Nasirpur, District Firozabad. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that according to the gang chart, the applicant is said to have been involved in two criminal cases, in which he has already been enlarged on bail, copy of bail orders have been brought on record as Annexure No. 4 to the bail application. Apart from gang-chart, applicant is said to have been involved in 23 other criminal cases, out of which bail orders of 20 criminal cases have been annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the bail application. It is further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is neither a 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 28.09.2024 and in case he is released 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 applicant is running a gang and co-accused Iqbal @ Pahalwan, Ishtiyak @ Pathan, Bablu and Ratipal @ Thakur are the members of the applicant's gang. It is also pointed out that the applicant is a history sheeter and apart from this case, he is involved in as many as 25 other criminal cases, which are as under:- (i) Case Crime No. 680 of 2015, U/s 307, 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Metsena, District Firozabad. (ii) Case Crime No. 179/2016, U/s 379 I.P.C., P.S. Khairgarh, District Firozabad. (iii) Case Crime No. 191/2016, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Khairgarh, District Firozabad. (iv) Case Crime No. 329 of 2016, U/s 380 I.P.C., P.S. Makkhanpur, District Firozabad. (v) Case Crime No. 606 of 2016, U/s 394 I.P.C., P.S. Tundla, District Firozabad. (vi) Case Crime No. 755 of 2016, U/s 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Ramgarh, District Firozabad. (vii) Case Crime No. 720 of 2016, U/s 379 I.P.C., P.S. Ramgarh, District Firozabad. (viii) Case Crime No. 751 of 2016, U/s 411, 413, 414 I.P.C., P.S. Ramgarh, District Firozabad. (ix) Case Crime No. 566 of 2020, U/s 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Jasrana, District Firozabad. (x) Case Crime No. 564 of 2020, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Jasrana, District Firozabad. (xi) Case Crime No. 184 of 2021, U/s 411, 413, 414 I.P.C., P.S. Panki, District Kanpur Nagar. (xii) Case Crime No. 39 of 2021, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Shivrajpur, District Kanpur Nagar. (xiii) Case Crime No. 68 of 2021, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Shivrajpur, District Kanpur Nagar. (xiv) Case Crime No. 676 of 2022, U/s 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Jasrana, District Firozabad. (xv) Case Crime No. 675 of 2022, U/s 411 I.P.C., P.S. Jasrana, District Firozabad. (xvi) Case Crime No. 368 of 2022, U/s 3/25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpur. (xvii) Case Crime No. 359 of 2022, U/s 459, 411, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri. (xviii) Case Crime No. 366 of 2022, U/s 307 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri. (xix) Case Crime No. 475 of 2022, U/s 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri. (xx) Case Crime No. 134 of 2022, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri. (xxi) Case Crime No. 293 of 2022, U/s 380, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri. (xxii) Case Crime No. 350 of 2022, U/s 380, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri. (xxiii) Case Crime No. 380 of 2023, U/s 380, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri. (xxiv) Case Crime No. 02 of 2024, U/s 323, 380, 411, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nasirpur, District Firozabad. (xxv) Case Crime No. 08 of 2024, U/s 399, 402, 307 I.P.C. Sections 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Nasripur, District Firozabad. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that except the present case, the applicant has a long criminal history of 25 cases. 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., (2015)3 SCC 527, 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 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. 10-Here it would be useful to quote the provisions of Section 19(4) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, which is relevant for consideration of bail of applicant in the said Act, which reads thus:- Section 19 (1)…….. (2)…….. (3)…….. (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. 11-It is well settled that every law is designed to facilitate end of justice and not to frustrate it. 12-Taking into note of the aforesaid provisions, I find that Section 19(4)(a) and (b) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 are mandatory in nature, hence, while granting bail said provisions can not be ignored. 13-However it is relevant to mention that no strait-jacket formula can be laid down with regard to satisfaction of the Court in terms of aforesaid Section 19(4)(b) of Act, 1986, because every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusion in two cases, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. 14-Having gone to the previous bail orders, I find that whenever the applicant was granted bail, a condition was imposed that further he will not indulge in any criminal case but every time applicant violated the said condition, hence misused the liberty of bail. 15-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 applicant in base cases as well as in the present case and severity of punishment, this Court in the light of criminal history of the applicant does not find reasonable grounds for believing that 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 Section 19(4)(b) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 does not stands satisfied. 16-In view of the above, the instant bail application is accordingly rejected. 17-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. 18-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 the provisions of Section 12 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 19-Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2-By means of this application, applicant-Gopali who is involved in Case Crime No. 187 of 2024, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Nasirpur, District Firozabad seeks enlargement on bail during pendency of trial. 3-Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that on the basis of two criminal cases registered against the applicant being case crime no. 02 of 2024, under Sections 323, 380, 411 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nasirpur, District Firozabad and case crime no. 08/24, under Sections 399, 402, 307 I.P.C. and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Nasirpur, District Firozabad, proceedings under the provisions of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was initiated against the applicant. Accordingly, a first information report was lodged on 28.09.2024 against the applicant-Gopali and four others namely Iqbal @ Pahalwan, Ishtiyak @ Pathan, Bablu and Ratipal @ Thakur for the offence under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station Nasirpur, District Firozabad. 4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that according to the gang chart, the applicant is said to have been involved in two criminal cases, in which he has already been enlarged on bail, copy of bail orders have been brought on record as Annexure No. 4 to the bail application. Apart from gang-chart, applicant is said to have been involved in 23 other criminal cases, out of which bail orders of 20 criminal cases have been annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the bail application. It is further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is neither a 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 28.09.2024 and in case he is released 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 applicant is running a gang and co-accused Iqbal @ Pahalwan, Ishtiyak @ Pathan, Bablu and Ratipal @ Thakur are the members of the applicant's gang. It is also pointed out that the applicant is a history sheeter and apart from this case, he is involved in as many as 25 other criminal cases, which are as under:- (i) Case Crime No. 680 of 2015, U/s 307, 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Metsena, District Firozabad. (ii) Case Crime No. 179/2016, U/s 379 I.P.C., P.S. Khairgarh, District Firozabad. (iii) Case Crime No. 191/2016, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Khairgarh, District Firozabad. (iv) Case Crime No. 329 of 2016, U/s 380 I.P.C., P.S. Makkhanpur, District Firozabad. (v) Case Crime No. 606 of 2016, U/s 394 I.P.C., P.S. Tundla, District Firozabad. (vi) Case Crime No. 755 of 2016, U/s 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Ramgarh, District Firozabad. (vii) Case Crime No. 720 of 2016, U/s 379 I.P.C., P.S. Ramgarh, District Firozabad. (viii) Case Crime No. 751 of 2016, U/s 411, 413, 414 I.P.C., P.S. Ramgarh, District Firozabad. (ix) Case Crime No. 566 of 2020, U/s 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Jasrana, District Firozabad. (x) Case Crime No. 564 of 2020, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Jasrana, District Firozabad. (xi) Case Crime No. 184 of 2021, U/s 411, 413, 414 I.P.C., P.S. Panki, District Kanpur Nagar. (xii) Case Crime No. 39 of 2021, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Shivrajpur, District Kanpur Nagar. (xiii) Case Crime No. 68 of 2021, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Shivrajpur, District Kanpur Nagar. (xiv) Case Crime No. 676 of 2022, U/s 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Jasrana, District Firozabad. (xv) Case Crime No. 675 of 2022, U/s 411 I.P.C., P.S. Jasrana, District Firozabad. (xvi) Case Crime No. 368 of 2022, U/s 3/25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpur. (xvii) Case Crime No. 359 of 2022, U/s 459, 411, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri. (xviii) Case Crime No. 366 of 2022, U/s 307 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri. (xix) Case Crime No. 475 of 2022, U/s 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri. (xx) Case Crime No. 134 of 2022, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri. (xxi) Case Crime No. 293 of 2022, U/s 380, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri. (xxii) Case Crime No. 350 of 2022, U/s 380, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri. (xxiii) Case Crime No. 380 of 2023, U/s 380, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri. (xxiv) Case Crime No. 02 of 2024, U/s 323, 380, 411, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nasirpur, District Firozabad. (xxv) Case Crime No. 08 of 2024, U/s 399, 402, 307 I.P.C. Sections 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Nasripur, District Firozabad. 6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that except the present case, the applicant has a long criminal history of 25 cases. 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., (2015)3 SCC 527, 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 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. 10-Here it would be useful to quote the provisions of Section 19(4) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, which is relevant for consideration of bail of applicant in the said Act, which reads thus:- Section 19 (1)…….. (2)…….. (3)…….. (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. 11-It is well settled that every law is designed to facilitate end of justice and not to frustrate it. 12-Taking into note of the aforesaid provisions, I find that Section 19(4)(a) and (b) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 are mandatory in nature, hence, while granting bail said provisions can not be ignored. 13-However it is relevant to mention that no strait-jacket formula can be laid down with regard to satisfaction of the Court in terms of aforesaid Section 19(4)(b) of Act, 1986, because every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusion in two cases, because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. 14-Having gone to the previous bail orders, I find that whenever the applicant was granted bail, a condition was imposed that further he will not indulge in any criminal case but every time applicant violated the said condition, hence misused the liberty of bail. 15-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 applicant in base cases as well as in the present case and severity of punishment, this Court in the light of criminal history of the applicant does not find reasonable grounds for believing that 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 Section 19(4)(b) of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 does not stands satisfied. 16-In view of the above, the instant bail application is accordingly rejected. 17-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. 18-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 the provisions of Section 12 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 19-Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad