Allahabad High Court
Parvej vs State Of U.P. on 31 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128314 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24531 of 2025 Applicant :- Parvej Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Ji Mishra,Kaushal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record of this case.
2. By means of this bail application, applicant Parvej, who is involved in Case Crime No. 48 of 2025, under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, police station Kharkhauda, district Meerut seeks enlargement on bail during pendency of trial.
3. Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are that on the basis of 02 cases registered at Case Crime No. 190 of 2024, under Section 109 BNS, Police Station-Kharkhauda, District-Meerut and Case Crime No. 215 of 2024, under Section 109 BNS, Section 3/25/28 Arms Act and Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station-Kharkhauda, District-Meerut, proceedings under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 were initiated against him. Accordingly, a First Information Report was lodged on 04.03.2025 against the applicant-Parvej, Shahjad and Akhlakh @ Gullu at Case Crime No. 48 of 2025, for the offence under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at police station Kharkhauda, district Meerut.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 have been invoked against the applicant on the basis of only 02 cases, which are mentioned in preceding paragraph no.3. In the said cases applicant has already been enlarged on bail, copy of bail orders has been brought on record as Annexure Nos. 3 and 4 to the bail application. It is next submitted that in 02 other criminal cases also being Case Crime No. 216 of 2021, under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, Police Station Lisarigate, District Meerut and Case Crime No. 671 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 336, 307 IPC, Police Station Brahmuri, District Meerut, the applicant has been granted bail, copy of the bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the bail application. It is further argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He is neither gang leader nor member of any gang. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.03.2025 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the applicant Parvej is running a gang and co-accused Shahjad and Akhlakh @ Gullu are the members of his gang. It is further pointed out that the applicant is a history sheeter and apart from this case, he is involved in as many as 18 other criminal cases, which are as under:
(i) Case Crime No. 180 of 2022, under Section 429 IPC, Section 11(1)1 Animal Cruelty Act and Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Lisarigate, District Meerut,
(ii) Case Crime No. 997 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, Police Station Lisarigate, District Meerut,
(iii) Case Crime No. 998 of 2019, under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Lisarigate, District Meerut,
(iv) Case Crime No. 347 of 2021, under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Kankarkheda, District Meerut,
(v) Case Crime No. 999 of 2019, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Lisarigate, District Meerut,
(vi) Case Crime No. 700 of 2023, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act,
(vii) Case Crime No. 1097 of 2017, under Section 3/11 Animal Cruelty Act, Police Station Kankarkheda, District Meerut,
(viii) Case Crime No. 1098 of 2017, under Section 4/25 Arms, Police Station Kankarkheda, District Meerut,
(ix) Case Crime No. 190 of 2024, under Section 109 BNS, Police Station Kharkhauda, District Meerut,
(x) Case Crime No. 216 of 2021, under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, Police Station Lisarigate, District Meerut,
(xi) Case Crime No. 215 of 2024, under Section 109 BNS, Section 3/25/28 Arms and Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Kharkhauda, District Meerut,
(xii) Case Crime No. 171 of 2022, under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut,
(xiii) Case Crime No. 671 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 336 IPC, Police Station Brahmpuri, District Meerut,
(xiv) Case Crime No. 672 of 2019, under Sections 109, 120B, 147, 148, 148, 149, 152, 188, 301, 304, 307, 323, 332, 336, 34 IPC, Section 3/4 Prevention to Damage of Public Property Act, Police Station Brahmpuri, District Meerut,
(xv) Case Crime No. 673 of 2019, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 336, 427, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Brahmpuri, District Meerut,
(xvi) Case Crime No. 676 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 427, 511, 436 IPC, Police Station Brahmpuri, District Meerut,
(xvii) Case Crime No. 05 of 2020, under Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Lisarigate, District Meerut,
(xviii) Case Crime No. 188 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 354B, 452, 504, 506, 511 IPC, Police Station Lisarigate, District Meerut,
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that apart from the present case, the applicant has a long criminal history of 18 other criminal cases as noted above, out of which, criminal history of only 04 cases (mentioned at Sl. Nos. (ix), (x), (xi) and (xiii) of preceding paragraph 5) have been disclosed by him in the bail application.
7. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446, Hon’ble Supreme Court, held as under:
“We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise. We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed.”
8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508, after referring a catena of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the consideration of factors for grant of bail, held as under:
“This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedent of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced herein above, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.”
9. The aforesaid judgement has further been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2021) 4 SCC 781. The fact in Sudha Singh‘s case was that F.I.R. under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was registered against the accused Arun Yadav, in which as per gang chart, 16 cases were shown against him. The High Court granted bail vide order dated 08.05.2020 considering the fact that out of 16 cases, in 03 cases accused had been acquitted, in 08 cases accused had been granted bail, 04 cases ended in favour of the accused and in 01 case no F.I.R. was lodged against him. The said order dated 08.05.2020 granting bail to the accused Arun Yadav was challenged by Sudha Singh who is wife of the deceased, namely, Rajnarain Singh, who has been allegedly murdered by the accused. The Apex Court vide order dated 23.04.2021 allowed the appeal and set aside the order granting bail to the accused. The relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in para no. 7 are quoted herein below :
“7. We find in this case that the High Court has overlooked several aspects, such as the potential threat to witnesses, forcing the trial court to grant protection. It is needless to point out that in cases of this nature, it is important that courts do not enlarge an accused on bail with a blinkered vision by just taking into account only the parties before them and the incident in question. It is necessary for courts to consider the impact that release of such persons on bail will have on the witnesses yet to be examined and the innocent members of the family of the victim who might be the next victims.”
10. It would not be out of place to mention that in the matter of bail merely disclosure of criminal history by the accused is not sufficient but proper explanation (about the nature of crime, role assigned to accused and status of investigation or trial as the case may be) of the same is also required to be mentioned in the bail application.
11. In the present case, the applicant has misused the process of law by not mentioning his complete criminal history and tried to mislead the Court. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hand and no material facts should be concealed. I am constrained to hold that more often the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants to achieve their nefarious design. I have no hesitation in saying that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court.
12. Having considered the factual aspect of the case with regard to granting bail to the applicant previously in other cases and the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I also find that every time whenever the applicant was granted bail, a condition was imposed that in future he will not indulge in any criminal case, but every time the applicant violated the said condition and got himself involved in criminal cases, hence I am of the considered view that he always misused the liberty of bail.
13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties as noted above, gravity of offence, role assigned to the applicant in base cases and severity of punishment, this Court in the light of criminal history of the applicant does not find reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Hence aforesaid mandatory requirement of Section 19 (4) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 does not stand satisfied.
14. In view of the above, the instant bail application stands rejected.
15. It is clarified that observations made herein above are limited to the extent of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence to be adduced uninfluenced by anything mentioned in the order.
16. The trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial of the applicant expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties in light of the provisions of Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
17. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court immediately for necessary information and compliance.
Order Date :- 31.7.2025
Shubham