Allahabad High Court
Imran Mulla vs State Of U.P. on 27 February, 2025
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26927
Reserved on 24.02.2025
Delivered on 27.02.2025
Court No. - 9
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28829 of 2024
Applicant :- Imran Mulla
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Pal Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. By means of this application, applicant Imran Mulla, who is involved in Case Crime No. 31 of 2024, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter called as "Gangster Act"), Police Station Partapur, District Meerut, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that two cases have been shown in the gang-chart, in which applicant has already been enlarged on bail. He further contended that there are nine more criminal cases registered against the applicant in which the applicant has also been enlarged on bail. It is further contended that the applicant is in jail since 03.05.2024 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail by submitting that this is the second time that the Gangster Act has been imposed upon the applicant. Earlier Gangster Act was also imposed upon the applicant in the year 2015 in which the applicant was released on bail on 16.05.2017. He submits that thereafter the applicant has been charged under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act as well as offences under Sections 379, 380, 392 IPC. He further submits that no compliance of Section 19(4)(b) of Gangster Act has been done so as to bring before the Court that the applicant would not commit any further crime.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. Before adverting to decide the bail application, a cursory glance of provision of Section 19(4)(b) of Gangster Act is necessary for better appreciation of the case, which reads as under;
"Section 19(4)(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."
6. From reading of Section 19 (4) (b), it is clear that before proceeding to grant bail in the Gangster Act, which is a special legislation, and Sub-section (4) of Section 19, which is a non-obstante clause, clearly provides that the Court before granting the bail to record the reasons that applicant would not commit any crime in future.
7. The criminal history of the applicant as given in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit is as under;
"(i). Case Crime No. 136 of 2023 under section 3/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S.- Partappur, District- Meerut.
(ii) Case Crime No. 144 of 2023 under section 307/34 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.- Partapur, District-- Meerut.
(iii) Case Crime No. 585 of 2018 under section 120-B, 347, 392, 411, 506 IPC, P.S.- Partappur, District- Meerut.
(iv) Case Crime No. 137 of 2017 under section 25 Arms Act, P.S.- Bhawanpur, District- Meerut.
(v) Case Crime No. 337 of 2015 under section 2/3 U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S.- Bhawanpur, District Meerut.
(vi) Case Crime No. 562 of 2016 under section 380, 457 IPC, P.S.- Bhawanpur, District- Meerut.
(vii) Case Crime No. 165 of 2013 under section 379, 411, IPC and 3/5/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S.- Parikshitgarh, District- Meerut.
(viii) Case Crime No. 171 of 2013 under sections 379, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Parikshitgarh, District- Meerut.
(ix). Case Crime No. 367 of 2013 under section 3/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and 11 Animal Cruelty Act, P.S.- Bhawanpur, District- Meerut.
(x). Case Crime No. 294 of 2017 under section 457, 380, 504, 506 IPC and 3/11 U.P. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, P.S.- Bhawanpur, District- Meerut.
(xi). Case Crime No. 167 of 2015 under section 3/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S.- Bhawanpur, District- Meerut."
8. The Supreme Court in Sudha Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2021) 4 SCC 781 in paras 8 to 11 has held as under :
"8. This Court in Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508 held that when a stand was taken that the accused was a history-sheeter, it was imperative for the High Courts to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the accused was entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
9. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9 SCC 446, this Court observed that when citizens were scared to lead a peaceful life and heinous offences were obstructions in the establishment of a well-ordered society, the courts play an even more important role, and the burden is heavy. It emphasised on the need to have a proper analysis of the criminal antecedents of the accused.
10. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, it was held that this Court ordinarily would not interfere with a High Court's order granting or rejecting bail to an accused. Nonetheless, it was equally imperative for the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the ratio set by a catena of decisions of this Court. The factors laid down in the judgment were:
(i) Whether there was a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of accusations;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of a conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if granted bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi)likelihood of repetition of the offence;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
11. There is no doubt that liberty is important, even that of a person charged with crime but it is important for the courts to recognise the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims/witnesses, if such accused is released on bail."
9. Looking into the exposition of law as also the criminal history of the applicant, which contains 11 cases under different sections as also the fact that earlier Gangsters Act was imposed upon the applicant and if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he would be a threat to the society at large, this Court cannot record its satisfaction in terms of Section 19(4)(b) of Gangster Act. No case for bail is made out.
9. Bail application is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :-27.2.2025
Kushal
