High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.70 of 2025, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1986) Police Station Fatehpur District - Barabanki.

3.Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

4. As per the gang chart annexed as annexure-2 to the application, a total of seven cases including the present one have been shown against applicant. It is submitted that in all the other six cases shown in the gang chart barring the present one, the applicant has been enlarged on bail, as indicated in paragraphs 6 to 11 of the affidavit fled in support of the application. It is submitted that apart from cases shown in the gang chart, there is no other case pending against applicant.

5. It is submitted that allegations for disturbing public order and gaining undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage against applicant, are vague and concocted. Further, it is submitted that a narration of the first information report transpires that the allegations are based upon pending criminal case(s) and not upon newly allegation(s) or discovery of fact(s) having serious impact on the society at large, for the reasons, the Act was promulgated in 1986. He added that the police is using the provisions of the Act of 1986 as a weapon to harass and intimidate applicant and further, it also appears that the District administration, in order to show good work or to seek appreciation from higher authorities, has invoked the provisions of the Act, which is uncalled for and unjustified.

6. Adding his arguments, he submits that applicant is not involved in any anti social activities and he is neither member nor leader of any gang.

7. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 30.01.2025; he is not guilty of any offence under the Act of 1986 and he undertakes that he would not commit any offence while on bail and would never try to tamper with evidence or would influence the witnesses and would never jump the conditions of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Therefore, submission is that applicant is entitled for bail.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but has fairly conceded that in the case (s) mentioned in the gang chart/case(s) explained other than in gang chart, the applicant(s) is/are on bail.

9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

10. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, prima facie and subject to further evidence being led in trial, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

11. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

12. Let applicant Kalim, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 kvg/- GIREESAN KV GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.70 of 2025, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1986) Police Station Fatehpur District - Barabanki.

3.Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

4. As per the gang chart annexed as annexure-2 to the application, a total of seven cases including the present one have been shown against applicant. It is submitted that in all the other six cases shown in the gang chart barring the present one, the applicant has been enlarged on bail, as indicated in paragraphs 6 to 11 of the affidavit fled in support of the application. It is submitted that apart from cases shown in the gang chart, there is no other case pending against applicant.

5. It is submitted that allegations for disturbing public order and gaining undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage against applicant, are vague and concocted. Further, it is submitted that a narration of the first information report transpires that the allegations are based upon pending criminal case(s) and not upon newly allegation(s) or discovery of fact(s) having serious impact on the society at large, for the reasons, the Act was promulgated in 1986. He added that the police is using the provisions of the Act of 1986 as a weapon to harass and intimidate applicant and further, it also appears that the District administration, in order to show good work or to seek appreciation from higher authorities, has invoked the provisions of the Act, which is uncalled for and unjustified.

6. Adding his arguments, he submits that applicant is not involved in any anti social activities and he is neither member nor leader of any gang.

7. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 30.01.2025; he is not guilty of any offence under the Act of 1986 and he undertakes that he would not commit any offence while on bail and would never try to tamper with evidence or would influence the witnesses and would never jump the conditions of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Therefore, submission is that applicant is entitled for bail.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but has fairly conceded that in the case (s) mentioned in the gang chart/case(s) explained other than in gang chart, the applicant(s) is/are on bail.

9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

10. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, prima facie and subject to further evidence being led in trial, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

11. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

12. Let applicant Kalim, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 kvg/- GIREESAN KV GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench