Allowed¶16

Faisal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2025BAIL/26592/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Santosh Rai, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26592 of 2025, order dated 22.8.2025: bail granted to Faisal in Case Crime No. 110 of 2025 under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act, P.S. Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad; Section 19(4) Gangsters Act bar examined; reliance on speedy-trial and Article 21 jurisprudence (K.A. Najeeb, Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, Dataram Singh, Satendra Kumar Antil); bail on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed: the applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (i)-(v), with identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties to be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. ¶16

Faisal Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Faisal, arraigned in Case Crime No. 110 of 2025 under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, ought to be enlarged on bail during trial despite the embargo in Section 19(4) of the Act, in view of the material on the gang-chart and his criminal antecedents.

¶14

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, and having regard to Article 21 and the dicta of the Apex Court in Dataram Singh and Satendra Kumar Antil, the applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The grant of bail is subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses, no seeking adjournments when witnesses are present, presence before the Trial Court on fixed dates including for charge-framing and Section 313 statement), and breach of any condition is a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Sections 2/3, U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — Section 19(4) embargo considered — applicant allegedly shown in gang chart as involved in 6 cases in which he had already been enlarged on bail, with 2 further cases explained; in custody since 19.03.2025 — Court, invoking Article 21 and the dicta of the Apex Court (Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb; Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee; Dataram Singh; Satendra Kumar Antil), released the applicant on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions, expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits; breach of conditions a ground for cancellation.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145883

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26592 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Faisal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Dhananjay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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, Faisal with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 110 of 2025, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Muradnagar, DistrictGhaziabad 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 6 criminal cases in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. Apart from 6 cases, the applicant has criminal history of 2 more cases explained in bail application. 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 19.03.2025 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 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.

¶10

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

¶11

"(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--

¶12

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

¶13

(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."

¶14

In light of Section 19(4) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, we 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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 :-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶19

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.

¶20

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(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. 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(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. 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.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

Order Date :- 22.8.2025 A.N. Mishra

¶26

Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Faisal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faisal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases