Aamir @ Mohd. Shadab Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23963 of 2025

Aamir @ Mohd. Shadab

Versus	.....	Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.	....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Satish	Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 87

¶5

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Aamir @ Mohd. Shadab with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.97 of 2025, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Rohaniya, District- Varanasi, during pendency of trial.

¶8

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to the gang chart the applicant is said to have been involved in only one criminal case in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. Apart from one case, the applicant has criminal history of one more case, which is explained in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit. He has falsely been implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. The applicant is not a member of any gang. He is languishing in jail since 14.04.2025 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the

¶10

BAIL No. 23963 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

applicant by contending that the applicant is a member of gang and habitual of committing crime. 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.

¶13

Section 19(4) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 reads as follows:-

¶14

"(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--

¶15

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

¶16

(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."

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

BAIL No. 23963 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

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.

¶22

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 sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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 B.N.S.

¶26

(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 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail 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 B.N.S.

¶27

BAIL No. 23963 of 2025

¶28

4

¶29

(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 B.N.S.S. 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.

¶30