Allahabad High Court
Mayank Raghav Alias Bhaiyaji vs State Of U.P. on 8 October, 2025
Author: Santosh Rai
Bench: Santosh Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:178923
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31530 of 2025
Mayank Raghav Alias Bhaiyaji
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Araf Khan, Tauseef Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Mayank Raghav Alias Bhaiyaji seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.228 of 2025, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh, during pendency of trial.
3. Learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the applicant is neither a member of the gang nor leader of the gang. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to police rivalry and he is languishing in jail since 10.5.2025. It is further submitted that according to the gang chart the applicant is said to have been involved in one criminal case which has been explained in para 6 of the bail application. Apart from the one case shown in the gang chart, the applicant has 12 criminal history which has been explained in para 7 of the bail application as well as in the supplementary affidavit. It is argued that since the charge-sheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. It is further argued that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of accused applicant fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the above argument by contending that the applicant is a habitual offender and one case has been shown in the gang chart. It is further submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar anti-social activities and will misuse the bail by extending threat and intimidation to the prosecution witnesses.
5. Section 19(4) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 reads as follows:-
"(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless--
(a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(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. In light of Section 19(4) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, I have considered the material evidence available on record, the nature of offence which has been mentioned in the gang-chart and the criminal background of the accused-applicant.
7. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, it was held that in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.
8. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the cases of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 & Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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 Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of BNS.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC/209 of BNS.
(v) 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 Cr.P.C./351 of BNSS If in the opinion of the Trial Court 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 against him in accordance with law.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
10. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
(Santosh Rai,J.)
October 8, 2025
RA
