Ramu alias Arun Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P.

Ashok Srivastava, J.—This bail application has been moved on behalf of Ramu alias Arun Kumar Pandey, who is involved in Case Crime No. 153 of 2006 u/s 2/3 of the U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention), Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act''), P.S. Charwa district Kaushambi.

An F.I.R. was lodged by the Station Officer of Police Station, Charwa, district Kaushambi on 15.8.2006 against the applicant u/s 2/3 of the U. P. Gangster Act. The applicant is detained in this crime number since 28.10.2006. According to the gang chart submitted by the State, there are 12 cases pending against him under various sections of various Acts and at various police stations. Out of these 12 cases, five cases are u/s 307, I.P.C. one case is u/s 395/397, I.P.C., one case is u/s 2/3 of the U. P. Gangster Act, one case is u/s 302, I.P.C. one case is u/s 18/20, N.D.P.S. Act and other cases are u/s 25, Arms Act and other Sections of Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant is in jail since 28.10.2006, that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated by the police, his enemies and political rivals in a number of false cases, that the cases shown at Case Crime No. 279/04 u/s 398/302, I.P.C. and at Case Crime No. 71/2003 u/s 307, I.P.C. Police Station, Kokhraj, have resulted in acquittal. It has further been submitted that in the remaining cases he is on bail. It has further been submitted that he is neither a gangster nor he is a member of any such gang and he has been falsely implicated in all the cases as the police wants to harass him. In the end the applicant has prayed for bail.

The bail application has been vehemently opposed by the learned A.G.A. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it has been mentioned that the Case Crime No. 71/03 u/s 307, I.P.C. P.S. Kokhraj district Kaushambi is still pending alongwith other cases. It has also been submitted that the accused has a long criminal history behind him ranging from 1996 to 2006, that he is involved in various cases of police stations Soraon and Shiv Kutti of district Allahabad and Police Station Kokhraj and Charwa of district Kaushambi. It has also been submitted by the learned A.G.A. that no bail order or judgment of acquittal has been filed from the side of the applicant.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Admittedly, the accused has behind him a long history of criminal cases which are under Sections 302, 307, 395, 396 and 398, I.P.C. and cases under Sections of N.D.P.S. Act and Gangster Act.

Section 19(4) of the U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 contains the provision under which an accused can claim bail. The Sub-section is as follows:

Section 19(4). - Notwith-standing 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.

Sub-clause (b) is relevant here. In this clause, it has been provided that any person accused of an offence punishable under this Act can only be released on bail if the Court hearing the bail application is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

My attention has been drawn by the learned A.G.A. towards the order of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17067 of 2009, Hamza Usman v. State of U.P.I have gone through this order.

From perusal of the provisions contained in Section 19(4)(b) it is evident that there should be reasonable ground before the Court hearing the bail application to believe that the applicant accused is not guilty of offence allegedly committed by him and further that he is likely to commit no offence while he shall be on bail.

In the instant case before me the accused-applicant has a long history of twelve criminal cases behind him, detail whereof has been mentioned above.

The applicant has been involved in a case u/s 3/2 of the U. P. Gagster Act, in the year 2003 and thereafter, a number of cases have been registered against him on various police stations under various sections of Indian Penal Code, Arms Act and N.D.P.S. Act.

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been granted bail in all the cases mentioned in the gang-chart and therefore he should be granted bail in this case on this ground alone. This submission is not acceptable. An offence punishable u/s 3 of the Gangster Act is an independent offence. Involvement of an accused in various other offences, in fact, constitutes circumstances and evidences against him which may indicate that the accused is a member or leader or organiser of a group which indulges in the kind of activities set out under various sub-clauses of Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Gangster Act by use of violence or threat or show of violence or intimidation. The Gangster Act has been enacted to make special provisions for the prevention of and for coping with anti-social activities of persons who are habitual in committing crimes for their personal gains and profits. Therefore, gravity of an offence u/s 3 of the Act may vary from case to case and therefore, no universal rule can be framed to grant bail in a case under this Section.

The idea behind enacting Section 19(4)(b) is to provide a guideline to the Courts considering bail applications under the Act. It is indicative of the fact that an offence punishable u/s 3 of the Act is grievous in nature and therefore, the Courts must ensure before granting bail that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. I am of considered view that these conditions should be borne in mind by the Court while disposing of a bail application in this Act. But at the same time the Court must be cautious that the provisions of the Act.... should not be allowed to be used as a weapon to wreak vengeance or harass or intimidate innocent citizens or to settle scores on political or other trouble.

In the instant case, the applicant is involved in a dozen criminal cases of heinous nature. In these circumstances in my opinion no case for bail is made out in his favour, Therefore, his bail application is rejected.