✦ High Court of India · 02 Sep 2025

State of U.P v. Party

Case Details High Court of India · 02 Sep 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

02 Sep 2025

Bench

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH

Length

1,928 words

Cited in this judgment

3. Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that on the basis of one criminal case registered against the applicant being Case Crime No. 197 of 2024, under Sections 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit, 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 30.04.2025 against the applicant-Sharif and eight others namely Mujeem alias Mujeeb, Rehan alias Rihan, Aslam, Qamar, Suhail Quraishi, Moeen, Nadeem Quraishi and Anees alias Lalla for the offence under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. 2 BAIL No. 22722 of 2025

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that according to the gang chart, the applicant is said to have involved in one criminal case, in which he has already been enlarged on bail, copy of bail order has been brought on record as Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Apart from present case and one case shown in the gang chart, the applicant is said to have involved in eighteen other criminal cases, out of which in 16 cases he has already been granted bail, copies of bail orders have been brought on record as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and Annexure No. S.A.-1 of the supplementary affidavit dated 20.07.2025. In one case being Case Crime No. 273 of 2025, under Sections 191(2) 190, 191(3), 352, 109 B.N.S., Section 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit, the applicant has not been charge-sheeted and Case Crime No. 217 of 2020, under Sections 147, 188 I.P.C., Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit has been withdrawn by the Government of U.P. It is further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.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 12.05.2025 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 the applicant is the member of the gang. It is also pointed out that the applicant is a habitual offender and apart from this case and one case mentioned in the gang chart, he is involved in as many as eighteen other criminal cases, which are as under:- (i) Case Crime No. 948 of 2014, under Sections 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. (ii) Case Crime No. 1185 of 2015, under Sections 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Puranpur, District 3 BAIL No. 22722 of 2025 Pilibhit. (iii) Case Crime No. 1416 of 2015, under Sections 452, 327, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. (iv) Case Crime No. 1032 of 2016, under Sections 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. (v) Case Crime No. 1180 of 2016, under Sections 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. (vi) Case Crime No. 1363 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 341, 353, 186, 188 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. (vii) Case Crime No. 1482 of 2016, under Section 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. (viii) Case Crime No. 319 of 2017, under Sections 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. (ix) Case Crime No. 515 of 2017, under Sections 3/5A/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. (x) Case Crime No. 314 of 2018, under Sections 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 273 I.P.C., Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. (xi) Case Crime No. 616 of 2018, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. (xii) Case Crime No. 149 of 2019, under Section 3/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. 4 BAIL No. 22722 of 2025 (xiii) Case Crime No. 443 of 2019, under Section 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. (xiv) Case Crime No. 326 of 2019, under Section 3/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. (xv) Case Crime No. 217 of 2020,under Sections 147, 188 I.P.C., Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. (xvi) Case Crime No. 116 of 2020, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. (xvii) Case Crime No. 836 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. (xviii) Case Crime No. 273 of 2025, under Sections 191(2) 190, 191(3), 352, 109 B.N.S., Section 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that the applicant has a long criminal history of total twenty cases including the present case, out of which twelve cases are related to U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.

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 5 BAIL No. 22722 of 2025 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., (2016) 15 SCC 422, 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 6 BAIL No. 22722 of 2025 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 the 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 cannot be ignored.

13. Having gone through 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.

14. 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 case 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 stand satisfied.

15. In view of the above, the instant bail application is accordingly rejected. 7 BAIL No. 22722 of 2025

16. 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.

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. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance. September 2, 2025 Kashifa (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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.

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

15. In view of the above, the instant bail application is accordingly rejected. 7 BAIL No. 22722 of 2025

18. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance. September 2, 2025 Kashifa (Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments