Salman v. State of U.P
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123082 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24654 of 2025 Applicant :- Salman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Kumar Pandey,Sunil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record of the case. 2. By means of this application under Section 483 of BNSS, applicant Salman, who is involved in Case Crime No. 48 of 2025, under Section 2/3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, police station Dadri, district Gautam Buddh Nagar 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 02 cases registered as Case Crime No. 716 of 2022, under Sections 392, 411, 34 IPC, Police Station- Surajpur, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar and Case Crime No. 775 of 2022, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station- Beta 02, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar against the applicant, 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 29.01.2025 against the applicant- Salman, Nishu @ Karan, Shadab @ Saddam, Ratan Singh, Sajid Saifi, Bijendra @ Brijesh and Pawan at Case Crime No. 2 Bail Application No. 24654 of 2025 Salman Vs. State of U.P. 48 of 2025, for the offence under Section 2/3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at police station Dadri, district Gautam Buddh Nagar.
Legal Reasoning
"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 5 Bail Application No. 24654 of 2025 Salman Vs. State of U.P. 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. 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 para 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 6 Bail Application No. 24654 of 2025 Salman Vs. State of U.P. 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.” 10. It would not be out of place to mention that in the matter of bail merely disclosure of criminal history by the accused is not sufficient but proper explanation (about the nature of crime, role assigned to accused and status of investigation or trial as the case may be) of the same is also required to be mentioned in the bail application. 11. In the present case, the applicant has misused the process of law by not mentioning his complete criminal history and tried to mislead the Court. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hand and no material facts should be concealed. I am constrained to hold that more often the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants to achieve their nefarious design. I have no hesitation in saying that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. 12. In Arunima Baruah Vs. Union of India (2007) 6 SCC 120, Supreme Court held that it is trite law that to enable the Court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must of material fact. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis. It was further held that a person invoking the discretionary 7 Bail Application No. 24654 of 2025 Salman Vs. State of U.P. jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. 13. In Prestige Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449, Apex Court held as under: “It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.” 14. In K.D Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, (2008) 12 SCC481, Supreme Court held that no litigant can play “hide and seek” with the courts or adopt “pick and choose”. To hold a writ of the court one should come with candid facts and clean breast. Suppression or concealment of material facts is forbidden to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In such cases the Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the court. 8 Bail Application No. 24654 of 2025 Salman Vs. State of U.P. 15. 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. The Court further held as under: “For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., `Satya' (truth) and `Ahinsa' (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over- shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream 9 Bail Application No. 24654 of 2025 Salman Vs. State of U.P. of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.” 16. In Amar Singh Vs. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 69, Supreme Court held that Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts. Courts held that such litigants have come with "unclean hands" and are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case. 17. In Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) SCALE 330, The Supreme Court held as under: “31. It has been consistently stated by this Court that the entire journey of a Judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents and arguments of the parties, as truth is the basis of the Justice Delivery System. 32. With the passage of time, it has been realized that people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the Courts, irrespective of the consequences but that practice no longer proves true, in all cases. The Court does not sit simply as an umpire in a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat as to who has won and who has lost but it has a legal duty of its own, independent of parties, to take active role in the proceedings and reach at the truth, which is the foundation of administration of justice. Therefore, the truth should become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by statutorily mandating the Courts to become active seekers of 10 Bail Application No. 24654 of 2025 Salman Vs. State of U.P. truth. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood, must be appropriately dealt with. The parties must state forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward false and exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the Court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorized or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the Court. One way to curb this tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs.” 18. Having considered the factual aspect of the case and the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the applicant has not come to the Court with clean hand. Honesty, fairness, purity of mind should be of the highest order to approach the court, failing which the litigants should be shown the exit door at the earliest point of time. 19. 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, 11 Bail Application No. 24654 of 2025 Salman Vs. State of U.P. hence I am of the considered view that he always misused the liberty of bail. 20. 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 one of the relevant factor to be kept in mind while considering bail of an accused 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. 21. It is well settled that every law is designed to facilitate end of justice and not to frustrate it. Hence the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered and followed. 22. Taking into note of the aforesaid provisions, I find that Section 19 (4) (a) and (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And 12 Bail Application No. 24654 of 2025 Salman Vs. State of U.P. Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 are mandatory in nature. Hence while considering/granting bail, said provisions cannot be ignored. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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 cases 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.
Arguments
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 have been wrongly invoked against the applicant on the basis of aforesaid two case being Case Crime No. 716 of 2022 and Case Crime No. 775 of 2022, in which he has already been enlarged on bail, copy of bail orders has been brought on record as Annexure Nos. 2 and 3 to the bail application. 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. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.02.2025 and in case, he is enlarged 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 co-accused Nishu @ Karan Singh is running a gang and the applicant Salman alongwith co-accused Shadab @ Saddam, Ratan Singh, Sajid Saifi, Bijendra @ Brijesh and Pawan are the members of his gang. It is further pointed out that the applicant is a history sheeter and apart from this case, he is involved in as many as 10 other criminal cases, which are as under: (i) Case Crime No. 239 of 2020, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur. (ii) Case Crime No. 264 of 2020, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station Kithore, District Meerut, 3 Bail Application No. 24654 of 2025 Salman Vs. State of U.P. (iii) Case Crime No. 277 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur, (iv) Case Crime No. 291 of 2020, under Sections 411, 120B IPC, Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur, (v) Case Crime No. 294 of 2020, under Sections 25 Arms Act, Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur, (vi) Case Crime No. 318 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411, 34, 120B IPC, Police Station Hapur Dehat, District Hapur, (vii) Case Crime No. 392 of 2020, under Sections 2/3 Gangster Act, Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur, (viii) Case Crime No. 716 of 2022, under Sections 392, 411, 34 IPC, Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, (ix) Case Crime No. 775 of 2022, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station Beta 2, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, (x) Case Crime No. 762 of 2022, under Sections 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that apart from the present case, the applicant has a long criminal history of 10 other criminal cases as noted above, out of which, criminal history of only 02 cases [mentioned above at Sl. Nos. (viii) and (ix) have been disclosed by him in the bail application. In paragraph no.11 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, wrong averment has been made that applicant has no criminal history except the above two cases. 4 Bail Application No. 24654 of 2025 Salman Vs. State of U.P. 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. (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:
Decision
26. In view of the above, the instant bail application stands rejected. 27. It is clarified that observations made herein above are limited to the extent of determination of this bail application 13 Bail Application No. 24654 of 2025 Salman Vs. State of U.P. 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. 28. 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. 29. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court immediately for necessary information and compliance. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Shubham