Ajay Kumar And Another vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court held that the applicants had made out a case for bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The reasoning was based on considering the nature of the offence and the evidence on record regarding the complicity of the accused. The Court granted bail to the applicants, Ajay Kumar and Vinod Kumar, on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Specific conditions were imposed, including an undertaking not to seek adjournment when witnesses are present, to remain present on each date fixed, and that misuse of bail liberty would lead to proceedings under Section 229-A IPC or Section 174-A IPC. The Court clarified that the observations made for granting bail would not affect the trial judge's independent opinion. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The applicants, Ajay Kumar and another, sought bail in GST No. 512 of 2010, arising from Case Crime No. 366 of 2008, under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The case was registered at Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh. The applicants claimed they were falsely implicated and had been released on bail previously but failed to appear in court on March 10, 2022, due to inadvertence, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants. They asserted they had not intentionally misused their bail liberty and that their criminal history had been explained. They had been in jail since February 7, 2023. The State opposed the bail, arguing the applicants had misused their liberty, causing the trial to be protracted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants have made out a case for bail under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, considering their previous grant of bail and subsequent non-appearance, and the State's contention of misuse of liberty and trial protraction. Arguments for the applicants: The applicants contended they were falsely implicated, their previous non-appearance was due to inadvertence and not intentional misuse of bail, and their criminal history had been explained. They argued they deserved bail as they had been languishing in jail since February 7, 2023, and would cooperate with the trial. Arguments for the State: The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicants had misused their liberty of bail, which had led to the protraction of the trial, and therefore, they did not deserve any indulgence.