✦ High Court of India · 24 Jul 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 24 Jul 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
24 Jul 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
2,561 words

Cited in this judgment

3. Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that on the basis of eight cases registered as Case Crime No. 449 of 2024, under Sections 136, 137 of the Electricity Act, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar, Case Crime No. 192 of 2024, under Sections 136, 137 of the Electricity Act, Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar, Case Crime No. 353 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar, Case Crime No. 168 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 303(2), 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar, Case Crime No. 193 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Sections 303(2), 112 of B.N.S., Police station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar, Case Crime No. 21 of 2025, under Sections 109, 317(5) B.N.S and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar, Case Crime No. 190 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Sections 303(2), 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar, and Case Crime No. 344 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar, against the applicant as well as considering his other criminal history, proceedings under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 were initiated against him. Accordingly, a first information report was lodged on 24.05.2025 against five accused persons, namely, Arshad (s/o Nooruddin), Arshad (s/o Alauddin), Sanjay, Vikas and Arjun, at Case Crime No. 227 of 2025, for the offence under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at police station Budhana, district Muzaffar Nagar.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that according to the gang chart, the applicant is said to have involved in twenty eighty criminal cases but the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 have been invoked against the applicant on the basis of aforesaid eight cases, in which he has already been enlarged on bail. It is next submitted that apart from present case as well as aforesaid eight cases mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant has criminal history of 20 other criminal cases, in which also, the applicant has been granted bail. It is further argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He is neither 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. It is further submitted that co- accused Arshad has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.06.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21269 of 2025, therefore, the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 10.01.2025 is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. Lastly, it is submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the applicant is a history sheeter and apart from this case, he is involved in as many as 28 other criminal cases, which are as under: (i) Case Crime No. 861 of 2018, under Sections 307, 379, 414, 511 I.P.C., Police Station Kankar Khera District Meerut. (ii) Case Crime No. 864 of 2018, under Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Kankar Kheda, District Meerut. (iii) Case Crime No. 333 of 2018, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Daraula, District Meerut. (iv) Case Crime No. 251 of 2019, under Section 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police station Kanker Kheda, District Meerut. (v) Case Crime No. 285 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (vi) Case Crime No. 298 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (vii) Case Crime No. 303 of 2024, under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (viii) Case Crime No. 219 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Purkazi, District Muzaffar Nagar. (ix) Case Crime No. 426 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 303(2), 324(4), 112 B.N.S., Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar. (x) Case Crime No. 4077 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Power Theft, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xi) Case Crime No. 4078 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Power Theft, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xii) Case Crime No. 318 of 2024, under Section 303(2) B.N.S., Police Station Chhapar District Muzaffar Nagar. (xiii) Case Crime No. 342 of 2024, under Section 303(2), Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xiv) Case Crime No. 267 of 2024, under Section 303(2) B.N.S., Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xv) Case Crime No. 278 of 2024, under Section 136, 139 of Electricity Act, Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xvi) Case Crime No. 281 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xvii) Case Crime No. 282 of 2024, under Section 305A B.N.S., Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xviii) Case Crime No. 283 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xix) Case Crime No. 254 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xx) Case Crime No. 280 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxi) Case Crime No. 449 of 2024 of 2024, under Sections 136, 137 of the Electricity Act, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxii) Crime No. 192 of 2024, under Sections 136, 137 of the Electricity Act, Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxiii) Case Crime No. 353 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxiv) Case Crime No. 168 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 303(2), 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxv) Case Crime No. 193 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Sections 303(2), 112 of B.N.S., Police station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxvi) Case Crime No. 190 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Sections 303(2), 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Karauli, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxvii) Case Crime No. 344 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxviii) Case Crime No. 21 of 2025, under Sections 109, 317(5) B.N.S and Sections 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar.

6. On the strength of above criminal history, it is also argued that the applicant is a habitual offender who has been repeatedly involved in cases pertaining to theft of electricity. It is next submitted that despite repeatedly being granted bail to the applicant in previous cases, he has shown no inclination towards reform and continues to commit the said offence. The recurrence of such offences by the applicant demonstrates a disregard for the rule of law and raises serious concern about the likelihood of him committing similar offences if released on bail. Hence bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that though the applicant has been enlarged on bail in all the 28 cases, but every time whenever the applicant was granted bail, a condition was imposed that in future he will not indulge in any criminal case, but every time the applicant violated the said condition and got himself involved in criminal cases, hence, I am of the considered view that he always misused the liberty of bail.

8. 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."

9. 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."

10. 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. The fact in Sudha Singh's case was that F.I.R. under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was registered against the accused Arun Yadav, in which as per gang chart, 16 cases were shown against him. The High Court granted bail vide order dated 08.05.2020 considering the fact that out of 16 cases, in 03 cases accused had been acquitted, in 08 cases accused had been granted bail, 04 cases ended in favour of the accused and in 01 case no F.I.R. was lodged against him. The said order dated 08.05.2020 granting bail to the accused Arun Yadav was challenged by Sudha Singh who is wife of the deceased, namely, Rajnarain Singh, who has been allegedly murdered by the accused. The Apex Court vide order dated 23.04.2021 allowed the appeal and set aside the order granting bail to the accused. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 7 are quoted herein below : "7. We find in this case that the High Court has overlooked several aspects, such as the potential threat to witnesses, forcing the trial court to grant protection. It is needless to point out that in cases of this nature, it is important that courts do not enlarge an accused on bail with a blinkered vision by just taking into account only the parties before them and the incident in question. It is necessary for courts to consider the impact that release of such persons on bail will have on the witnesses yet to be examined and the innocent members of the family of the victim who might be the next victims."

11. Having considered the factual aspect of the case with regard to granting bail to the applicant previously in other cases and the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I also find that every time whenever the applicant was granted bail, a condition was imposed that in future he will not indulge in any criminal case, but every time the applicant violated the said condition and got himself involved in criminal cases, hence I am of the considered view that he always misused the liberty of bail.

12. The plea of false implication is a stereotyped defence raised in every case. Experience shows that such statements are made in almost every case, therefore, plea of false implication without any basis or material on record is not liable to be accepted blindly.

13. So far as submission of learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Arshad has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.06.2025 is concerned, it is relevant to mention that co-accused Arshad has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench ignoring the provisions of Section 19 (4) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, hence the said order has no binding effect to this Court in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559.

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 the applicant in base case and severity of punishment, this Court in the light of criminal history of the applicant does not find reasonable grounds for believing that the 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.

15. In view of the above, the instant bail application stands rejected.

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 the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

18. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court immediately for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that on the basis of eight cases registered as Case Crime No. 449 of 2024, under Sections 136, 137 of the Electricity Act, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar, Case Crime No. 192 of 2024, under Sections 136, 137 of the Electricity Act, Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar, Case Crime No. 353 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar, Case Crime No. 168 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 303(2), 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar, Case Crime No. 193 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Sections 303(2), 112 of B.N.S., Police station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar, Case Crime No. 21 of 2025, under Sections 109, 317(5) B.N.S and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar, Case Crime No. 190 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Sections 303(2), 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar, and Case Crime No. 344 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar, against the applicant as well as considering his other criminal history, proceedings under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 were initiated against him. Accordingly, a first information report was lodged on 24.05.2025 against five accused persons, namely, Arshad (s/o Nooruddin), Arshad (s/o Alauddin), Sanjay, Vikas and Arjun, at Case Crime No. 227 of 2025, for the offence under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at police station Budhana, district Muzaffar Nagar.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that according to the gang chart, the applicant is said to have involved in twenty eighty criminal cases but the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 have been invoked against the applicant on the basis of aforesaid eight cases, in which he has already been enlarged on bail. It is next submitted that apart from present case as well as aforesaid eight cases mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant has criminal history of 20 other criminal cases, in which also, the applicant has been granted bail. It is further argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He is neither 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. It is further submitted that co- accused Arshad has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.06.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21269 of 2025, therefore, the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 10.01.2025 is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. Lastly, it is submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the applicant is a history sheeter and apart from this case, he is involved in as many as 28 other criminal cases, which are as under: (i) Case Crime No. 861 of 2018, under Sections 307, 379, 414, 511 I.P.C., Police Station Kankar Khera District Meerut. (ii) Case Crime No. 864 of 2018, under Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Kankar Kheda, District Meerut. (iii) Case Crime No. 333 of 2018, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Daraula, District Meerut. (iv) Case Crime No. 251 of 2019, under Section 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police station Kanker Kheda, District Meerut. (v) Case Crime No. 285 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (vi) Case Crime No. 298 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (vii) Case Crime No. 303 of 2024, under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (viii) Case Crime No. 219 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Purkazi, District Muzaffar Nagar. (ix) Case Crime No. 426 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 303(2), 324(4), 112 B.N.S., Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar. (x) Case Crime No. 4077 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Power Theft, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xi) Case Crime No. 4078 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Power Theft, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xii) Case Crime No. 318 of 2024, under Section 303(2) B.N.S., Police Station Chhapar District Muzaffar Nagar. (xiii) Case Crime No. 342 of 2024, under Section 303(2), Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xiv) Case Crime No. 267 of 2024, under Section 303(2) B.N.S., Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xv) Case Crime No. 278 of 2024, under Section 136, 139 of Electricity Act, Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xvi) Case Crime No. 281 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xvii) Case Crime No. 282 of 2024, under Section 305A B.N.S., Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xviii) Case Crime No. 283 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xix) Case Crime No. 254 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xx) Case Crime No. 280 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act, Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxi) Case Crime No. 449 of 2024 of 2024, under Sections 136, 137 of the Electricity Act, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxii) Crime No. 192 of 2024, under Sections 136, 137 of the Electricity Act, Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxiii) Case Crime No. 353 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxiv) Case Crime No. 168 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 303(2), 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxv) Case Crime No. 193 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Sections 303(2), 112 of B.N.S., Police station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxvi) Case Crime No. 190 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Sections 303(2), 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Karauli, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxvii) Case Crime No. 344 of 2024, under Section 136 of Electricity Act and Section 112 of B.N.S., Police Station Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar. (xxviii) Case Crime No. 21 of 2025, under Sections 109, 317(5) B.N.S and Sections 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar.

6. On the strength of above criminal history, it is also argued that the applicant is a habitual offender who has been repeatedly involved in cases pertaining to theft of electricity. It is next submitted that despite repeatedly being granted bail to the applicant in previous cases, he has shown no inclination towards reform and continues to commit the said offence. The recurrence of such offences by the applicant demonstrates a disregard for the rule of law and raises serious concern about the likelihood of him committing similar offences if released on bail. Hence bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that though the applicant has been enlarged on bail in all the 28 cases, but every time whenever the applicant was granted bail, a condition was imposed that in future he will not indulge in any criminal case, but every time the applicant violated the said condition and got himself involved in criminal cases, hence, I am of the considered view that he always misused the liberty of bail.

8. 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."

9. 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."

10. 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. The fact in Sudha Singh's case was that F.I.R. under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was registered against the accused Arun Yadav, in which as per gang chart, 16 cases were shown against him. The High Court granted bail vide order dated 08.05.2020 considering the fact that out of 16 cases, in 03 cases accused had been acquitted, in 08 cases accused had been granted bail, 04 cases ended in favour of the accused and in 01 case no F.I.R. was lodged against him. The said order dated 08.05.2020 granting bail to the accused Arun Yadav was challenged by Sudha Singh who is wife of the deceased, namely, Rajnarain Singh, who has been allegedly murdered by the accused. The Apex Court vide order dated 23.04.2021 allowed the appeal and set aside the order granting bail to the accused. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 7 are quoted herein below : "7. We find in this case that the High Court has overlooked several aspects, such as the potential threat to witnesses, forcing the trial court to grant protection. It is needless to point out that in cases of this nature, it is important that courts do not enlarge an accused on bail with a blinkered vision by just taking into account only the parties before them and the incident in question. It is necessary for courts to consider the impact that release of such persons on bail will have on the witnesses yet to be examined and the innocent members of the family of the victim who might be the next victims."

11. Having considered the factual aspect of the case with regard to granting bail to the applicant previously in other cases and the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I also find that every time whenever the applicant was granted bail, a condition was imposed that in future he will not indulge in any criminal case, but every time the applicant violated the said condition and got himself involved in criminal cases, hence I am of the considered view that he always misused the liberty of bail.

12. The plea of false implication is a stereotyped defence raised in every case. Experience shows that such statements are made in almost every case, therefore, plea of false implication without any basis or material on record is not liable to be accepted blindly.

13. So far as submission of learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Arshad has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.06.2025 is concerned, it is relevant to mention that co-accused Arshad has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench ignoring the provisions of Section 19 (4) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, hence the said order has no binding effect to this Court in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559.

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 the applicant in base case and severity of punishment, this Court in the light of criminal history of the applicant does not find reasonable grounds for believing that the 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.

15. In view of the above, the instant bail application stands rejected.

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 the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

18. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court immediately for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Kashifa 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