Israr Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 79

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25905 of 2022

Applicant :- Israr Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Ji Mishra,Ankush Yadav,Kaushal Kumar Pandey,Rajrshi Gupta,Rizwan Ahamad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.K. Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

3.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 160 of 2022, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (prevention) Act, 1986 , P.S. Bhawanpur District Meerut.

¶8

The gang-chart mentions only two cases against the applicant namely (i) Case Crime No. 105 of 2022, under Sections 307, 34, 413 I.P.C., P.s. Bhawanpur, District Meerut and (ii) Case Crime No. 112 of 2022, under Sections 413, 414, 420, 471, 482, 34, 307 IPC, P.S. Bhawanpur, District Meerut and it has been stated that the applicant has been granted bail in both the aforesaid cases.

¶9

In paragraph 9 the applicant's criminal history relating to Uttar Pradesh is mentioned whereas in paragraph 10 the applicant's criminal history of Delhi region is mentioned and overall the criminal history of 34 cases have been disclosed. The aforesaid criminal history of the applicant relates to cases of various natures including the allegation of commission of offence under Section 307 I.P.C.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in some cases the police has submitted a final report and in some cases he has already been acquitted.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and he has stated that keeping in view the long criminal history of the applicant of various natures, he should not be released on bail.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the record.

¶13

For granting bail to a person under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and AntiSocial Activities (prevention) Act, 1986, the requirement of Section 19(4) of the aforesaid act are to be fulfilled, which provides as follows:-

¶14

"19(4)- Notwithstanding anything contained in the code, no person accused of an offence

¶15

punishable under this Act or nay rule made thereunder shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless:

¶16

(a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

¶17

(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.

¶18

In the present case, although the gang-chart mentions involvement of the applicant in two cases, he is involved in as many as 12 other cases in the State of U.P. and he has been implicated in 22 cases in Delhi. The applicant's long criminal history leaves no reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty of the offences mentioned in the gang-chart and that he is not likely to commit any offence in case he is enlarged on bail.

¶19

In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. , (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

¶20

" A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

¶21

2. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. .................. (Emphasis supplied)

¶22

In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that denying the bail to the applicant would be the right thing to do in the present case.

¶23

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

¶24

Order Date :- 12.10.2022

¶25

pks

¶26

Digitally signed by PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.10.17 10:20:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Israr v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Israr v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep @ Honey Jotwai Vs State of U.P.

Ali Raza Vs State of U.P.

Vijaypal Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others