Allahabad High Court
Rohan Alias Kalu 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:26928
Reserved on 24.02.2025
Delivered on 27.02.2025
Court No. - 9
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31246 of 2024
Applicant :- Rohan Alias Kalu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Kumar Pandey
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.56 of 2024, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter called as "Gangster Act"), Police Station Hastinapur, District Meerut, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that thirteen cases have been shown in the gang-chart, in which applicant has already been enlarged on bail. It is further contended that the applicant is in jail since 24.05.2024 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 the applicant is having long criminal history of thirteen cases ranging from the year 2018 under Sections 302, 307, 393, 504, 506 IPC at various police stations of district Meerut. 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 on perusal of 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 8 of the affidavit to the bail application is as under;
"(i). Case Crime No. 370 of 2018 under Sections 452, 307, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Parikshitgarh, District- Meerut.
(ii) Case Crime No. 468 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 427, 452, 506 IPC, P.S.- Bhawanpur, District- Meerut.
(iii) Case Crime No. 528 of 2018 under Sections 307, 324, 325 IPC, P.S.- Hastinapur, District- Meerut.
(iv) Case Crime No. 155 of 2019 under Sections 323, 341, 452, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Parikshitgarh, District- Meerut.
(v) Case Crime No. 169 of 2019 under Sections 307, 323, 506 IPC, P.S.- Parikshitgarh, District- Meerut.
(vi) Case Crime No. 46 of 2020 under Sections 307, 506 IPC, P.S.- Parikshitgarh, District- Meerut.
(vii) Case Crime No. 196 of 2020 under Section 393 IPC, P.S.- Parikshitgarh, District- Meerut.
(viii) Case Crime No. 210 of 2020 under Sections 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.- Parikshitgarh, District- Meerut.
(ix). Case Crime No. 193 of 2020 under Sections 307, 393 IPC, P.S.- Parikshitgarh, District- Meerut.
(x). Case Crime No. 206 of 2022 under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Bhawanpur, District- Meerut.
(xi). Case Crime No. 197 of 2022 under Sections 393 IPC, P.S.- Parikshitgarh, District- Meerut.
(xii) Case Crime No. 224 of 2022 under Sections 302, 323, 504, 504/34 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.- Parikshitgarh, District- Meerut.
(xiii) Case Crime No. 326 of 2022 under Sections 3/25 Arms 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 fact that the applicant is having long drawn criminal history of thirteen cases 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
