Excise Act, Police Station Railway Road, District Meerut v. Case Crime No

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 02 of 2025, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, police station Sector 58 Noida, district Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the gang chart following four cases have been shown against the applicant: i. Case Crime No. 209 of 2024, under Sections 303(2), 324(4) B.N.S., Police Station Sector-126, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. ii. Case Crime No. 345 of 2024, under Sections 303(2), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Sector-58, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. iii. Case Crime No. 346 of 2024, under Section 303(2) B.N.S., Police Station Sector-58, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. iv. Case Crime No. 358 of 2024, under Sections 109, 317(5), 3(5) B.N.S. and Sections 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Sector-58, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. In all the aforesaid cases, applicant is on bail and copy of bail orders have been brought on record as Annexure No. 3 to the afÏdavit, averment in this regard has been made in paragraph No. 8 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail applicant. It is further submitted that apart from aforesaid cases, applicant has no other criminal history, averment in this regard has also been made in paragraph No. 9 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 24.05.2025, may be enlarged on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate pointed out that apart from four cases shown in the gang chart and the present case, applicant has criminal history of five other cases, which are as under:- i. Case Crime No. 240 of 2021, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Delhi Gate, District Meerut. ii. Case Crime No. 1020 of 2018, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut. iii. Case Crime No. 85 of 2021, under Sections 411, 414 I.P.C., Police Station Railway Road, District Meerut. iv. Case Crime No. 294 of 2018, under Section 60 Excise Act, Police Station Railway Road, District Meerut. v. Case Crime No. 672 of 2020, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Lalkurti, District Meerut.

5. On putting query by the Court, learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned A.G.A. and submits that since the cousin of the applicant is deponent in the present case and he was not aware about the complete criminal history of the applicant, therefore, the same could not be mentioned.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the applicant has not come with clean hands as he has suppressed and concealed the material facts about his criminal history, which is also one of the relevant aspect for considering the bail prayer of the applicant.

7. In view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P., (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527, criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding bail application, discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner in case of a habitual offender.

8. The said judgment has been further followed by the Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, 2021 (4) SCC 781.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 came down heavily on unscrupulous litigants by holding that it is now well established that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

10. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed. I am constrained to observe that more often the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants/accused to achieve their nefarious design.

11. 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 under 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."

12. It is well settled that every law is designed to facilitate end of justice and not to frustrate it.

13. 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 cannot be ignored.

14. 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 the Act, 1986, because every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusions of two cases.

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 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 19 (4) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 does not stand satisfied. Hence no case for bail is made out at this stage.

16. In view of the above, the instant bail application is accordingly rejected.

17. 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.

18. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

19. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 02 of 2025, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, police station Sector 58 Noida, district Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the gang chart following four cases have been shown against the applicant: i. Case Crime No. 209 of 2024, under Sections 303(2), 324(4) B.N.S., Police Station Sector-126, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. ii. Case Crime No. 345 of 2024, under Sections 303(2), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Sector-58, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. iii. Case Crime No. 346 of 2024, under Section 303(2) B.N.S., Police Station Sector-58, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. iv. Case Crime No. 358 of 2024, under Sections 109, 317(5), 3(5) B.N.S. and Sections 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Sector-58, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. In all the aforesaid cases, applicant is on bail and copy of bail orders have been brought on record as Annexure No. 3 to the afÏdavit, averment in this regard has been made in paragraph No. 8 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail applicant. It is further submitted that apart from aforesaid cases, applicant has no other criminal history, averment in this regard has also been made in paragraph No. 9 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 24.05.2025, may be enlarged on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate pointed out that apart from four cases shown in the gang chart and the present case, applicant has criminal history of five other cases, which are as under:- i. Case Crime No. 240 of 2021, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Delhi Gate, District Meerut. ii. Case Crime No. 1020 of 2018, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut. iii. Case Crime No. 85 of 2021, under Sections 411, 414 I.P.C., Police Station Railway Road, District Meerut. iv. Case Crime No. 294 of 2018, under Section 60 Excise Act, Police Station Railway Road, District Meerut. v. Case Crime No. 672 of 2020, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Lalkurti, District Meerut.

5. On putting query by the Court, learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned A.G.A. and submits that since the cousin of the applicant is deponent in the present case and he was not aware about the complete criminal history of the applicant, therefore, the same could not be mentioned.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the applicant has not come with clean hands as he has suppressed and concealed the material facts about his criminal history, which is also one of the relevant aspect for considering the bail prayer of the applicant.

7. In view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P., (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527, criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding bail application, discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner in case of a habitual offender.

8. The said judgment has been further followed by the Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, 2021 (4) SCC 781.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 came down heavily on unscrupulous litigants by holding that it is now well established that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

10. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed. I am constrained to observe that more often the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants/accused to achieve their nefarious design.

11. 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 under 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."

12. It is well settled that every law is designed to facilitate end of justice and not to frustrate it.

13. 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 cannot be ignored.

14. 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 the Act, 1986, because every case turns on its own facts. Even one additional or different fact may make a big difference between the conclusions of two cases.

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 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 19 (4) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 does not stand satisfied. Hence no case for bail is made out at this stage.

16. In view of the above, the instant bail application is accordingly rejected.

17. 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.

18. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

19. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad