Allahabad High Court
Kallu Banjara vs State Of U.P. on 8 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134650
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27394 of 2025
Applicant :- Kallu Banjara
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. representing the State and perused the record.
2-The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2025, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Paterhva, District Kushi Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
3-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that on the basis of one criminal case being Case Crime No. 68 of 2022, under Sections 3/5A/8/5B of Cow Slaughter Act, Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, Police Station Patharwa, District Kushinagar, an F.I.R. under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act was lodged on 07.02.2025 against the applicant, in which he has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2022, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit filed in support of this bail application. It is further submitted that apart from aforesaid case, applicant has no other criminal history, averment in this regard has also been made in paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 26.05.2025, may be enlarged on bail.
4-On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State pointed out that apart from the present case as well as the case shown in the gang chart, applicant has criminal history of five other criminal cases, which are as under:-
(i) Case Crime No. 104 of 2020, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station Intaunja, District Lucknow.
(ii) Case Crime No. 253 of 2022, under Sections 3/5A/8/5B Cow Slaughter Act and Section 429 I.P.C., Police Station Auras, District Unnao.
(iii) Case Crime No. 88 of 2023, under Sections 3/5A/8/5B, Cow Slaughter Act, Section 11 Animal Cruelty Act and Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 478, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Tharwai, District Prayagraj.
(iv) Case Crime No. 140 of 2024, under Section 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Section 11 Animal Cruelty Act, Sections 120-B, 307 I.P.C. and Sections 4/5 Explosive Substances Act, Police Station Tharwai, Ganganagar, District Prayagraj.
(v) Case Crime No. 165 of 2025, under Sections 3/5A/8/5B, Section 11 Animal Cruelty Act, Sections 109(1), 325 B.N.S. and Section 4/5 Arms Act, Police Station Bariyarpur, District Deoria.
5-On putting query by the Court, learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the aforesaid submission of learned A.G.A. and submits that since the brother of the applicant is deponent in the present case and he was not aware about the complete criminal history of the applicant, therefore, the same could not be mentioned.
6-Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the applicant has not come with clean hands as he has suppressed and concealed the material facts about his criminal history, which is also one of the relevant aspect for considering the bail prayer of the applicant.
7-In view of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P., (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527, criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be ignored while deciding bail application, discretionary powers of Courts to grant bail must be exercised in a judicious manner in case of a habitual offender.
8-The said judgment has been further followed by the Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, 2021 (4) SCC 781.
9-The Hon'ble 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.
10-The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed. I am constrained to observe that more often the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants/accused to achieve their nefarious design.
11-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 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 19 (4) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 does not stand satisfied. Hence no case for bail is made out at this stage.
12-In view of the above, the instant bail application is accordingly rejected.
13-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.
14-It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.
15-Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance.
Order Date :- 8.8.2025
Saurabh
