Gulgulia @ Shivam vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 738 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Gulgulia @ Shivam vs State Of U.P. on 8 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74881
 
Court No. - 88
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32495 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Gulgulia @ Shivam
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuraj Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
 

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Raghuraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

3. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicant Gulgulia @ Shivam with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.264 of 2023, under Section 3(1) Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah, during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the applicant has been slapped in the present case on the basis of five cases as shown in the gang chart, as Case Crime No.74 of 2023, under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C., Case Crime No.123 of 2023, under Sections 392 and 411 I.P.C., Case Crime No.130 of 2023, under Sections 411/34 I.P.C., Case Crime No.131 of 2023, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Case Crime No.75 of 2023, under Sections 392, 411 and 412 I.P.C., in which he has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court as well as by trial court, bail orders have been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit. There is no evidence with regard to the fact that the applicant has run any gang or a gang leader as defined in the Act. It is next contended that applicant is neither a member of any gang nor a gang leader and he has not indulged in any anti-social activities as alleged by the prosecution in the first information report. It is also submitted that the applicant is not a gangster and has never acted or conducted himself as such. It is next submitted that co-accused Kallu @ Kalicharan Kanjad has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.33886 of 2023.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further urged that the F.I.R. in question has been lodged without containing the facts that the applicant is a member of gang as provided in the Act. He has next argued that applicant has criminal history of nine other cases, which has been explained in paragraph no.8 of the rejoinder affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.06.2023.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446 and Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 wherein the Apex Court has observed that pendency of other criminal cases against the accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

9. It is well settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception and refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution [Vide State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.]

10. No material or circumstances has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witnesses in previous criminal history.

11. Keeping in mind, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

12. Let applicant Gulgulia @ Shivam be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) 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 the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

14. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

15. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

Order Date :- 8.5.2025

Asha