Allahabad High Court
Rupesh Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 6 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:80802
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14323 of 2024
Applicant :- Rupesh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.439 of 2018, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Act, 1986, Police Station Belipar, District Gorakhpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
4. From the record, it reflects that on the basis of two cases shown in the gang chart including a case under Section 302 I.P.C. applicant has been made accused in the present matter.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that applicant is neither member nor leader of any gang and he never indulged in any anti-social activity.
6. He further submits that however in the gang chart two cases have been shown against the applicant but one case is of Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., in which applicant is on bail.
7. He further submits that however remaining one case is of Section 302 I.P.C. and in that case, applicant has been convicted on 17.01.2022 but when he filed appeal before this Court then on 03.04.2024 this Court enlarged him on bail during pendency of the appeal.
8. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since June, 2019 i.e. for almost five years.
9. He further submits that minimum punishment provided for offence under Section 3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Act is three years and applicant has already served more than minimum punishment provided under the provision of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Act.
10. He further submits that till date not even a single prosecution witness could be examined and therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.
11. He placed reliance on the judgment of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 and submits that however this case related to the offence of N.D.P.S. Act but Section 19(4) U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act is pari-materia with Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act and Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain (supra) categorically observed that on the basis of long incarceration even in cases of N.D.P.S. Act bail of an accused can be considered.
12. He further submits that merely by any special statute, the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be diluted and considering the fact that applicant is in jail for almost five years, he should be released on bail.
13. He further submits that apart from the present case and two cases shown in the gang chart, applicant is not having any criminal history to his credit.
14. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant has already been convicted in case under Section 302 I.P.C. but could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter since June, 2019 i.e. for almost five years and till date not even a single prosecution witness could be examined.
15. He further could not dispute the fact that apart from the present case and two cases shown in the gang chart, applicant is not having any criminal history to his credit.
16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
17. From the record, it reflects that on the basis of two cases shown in the gang chart applicant was made accused in the present matter in the year 2018 and one case is however Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. but another one is a case of murder.
18. Record further suggests that in case of murder, applicant has been convicted by the trial court but he has been released on bail by this Court during pendency of his appeal. Further, in case under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C., applicant is also on bail.
19. Further, apart from the present case and two cases shown in the gang chart, applicant is not having any criminal history to his credit.
20. However, applicant appears to be convicted person but he is in jail in the present matter since June, 2019 i.e. for almost five years and it appears that he has already served more than minimum punishment of three years provided under the provision of Section 3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Act and record further suggests that till date not even a single prosecution witness could be examined and therefore, it appears that trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.
21. It also reflects that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has been infringed. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain (supra) categorically observed that even where there are special provisions with regard to the stringent condition of granting bail then also on the basis of long incarceration an accused can be released on bail considering Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court finds force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that the provisions of Section19(4) U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act are pari-materia with the provisions of Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act, therefore, observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain (supra) with regard to the provisions of Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act is equally applicable in cases of Gangsters Act and therefore, on the ground of long incarceration and infringement of fundamental right of speed trial even in cases of U.P. Gangsters Act an accused can be released on bail.
22. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
23. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
24. Let the applicant- Rupesh Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
25. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
26. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 6.5.2024
Zafar
