Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140163 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27422 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Rashid Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Rao, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record of this case. 2. By means of this bail application, applicant Mohd. Rashid Ali, who is involved in Case Crime No. 19 of 2025, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, police station Belhar Kala, district Sant Kabir Nagar 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 03 cases registered at Case Crime No. 236 of 2024, under Sections 305(e), 331(4), 112, 317(2), 317(4) BNS, Police Station-Belhar Kala, District-Sant Kabir Nagar, Case Crime No. 246 of 2024, under Sections 305(e), 331(4), 112, 317(2), 317(4) BNS, Police Station-Belhar Kala, District-Sant Kabir Nagar and Case Crime No. 248 of 2024, under Sections 305(e), 331(4), 112, 317(2), 317(4) BNS, Police Station-Belhar Kala, District-Sant Kabir Nagar, 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 22.01.2025 against the applicant- Mohd. Rashid Ali, Mohd. Tahir and Vikas Kumar Gond at Case Crime No. 19 of 2025, for the offence under Section 3(1) of 2 Bail Application No. 27422 of 2025 Mohd. Rashid Ali Vs. State of U.P. the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at police station Belhar Kala, district Sant Kabir Nagar. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that in the aforesaid three base cases, the applicant has already been enlarged on bail. 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 23.01.2025 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 Mohd. Rashid Ali is running a gang and co-accused Mohd. Tahir and Vikas Kumar Gond are the members of his gang. It is further pointed out that apart from this case and the three base cases shown against the applicant in the gang chart, he is involved in as many as 15 other criminal cases but the same have not been disclosed and explained by the deponent, who has filed the instant bail application on behalf of the applicnat Mohd. Rashid Ali. The complete details of the criminal cases registered against the applicant are as under : (i) Case Crime No. 538 of 2010, under Sections 452, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar. (ii) Case Crime No. 1444 of 2010, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 353, 332 IPC and Section 135A of Representation of the People Act, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar, 3 Bail Application No. 27422 of 2025 Mohd. Rashid Ali Vs. State of U.P. (iii) Case Crime No. 1539 of 2010, under Section 110 Cr.P.C., Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar, (iv) Case Crime No. 1728 of 2010, under Section 3/4 Goonda Act, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar, (v) Case Crime No. 581 of 2016, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar, (vi) Case Crime No. 843 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 392 IPC, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar, (vii) Case Crime No. 172 of 2017, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar, (viii) Case Crime No. 499 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar, (ix) Case Crime No. 178 of 2018, under Sections 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar, (x) Case Crime No. 25 of 2019, under Sections 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar, (xi) Case Crime No. 67 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 427, 452 IPC, Police Station Belhar Kala, District Sant Kabir Nagar, (xii) Case Crime No. 112 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)r, s SC/ST Act, Police Station Belhar Kala, District Sant Kabir Nagar, (xiii) Case Crime No. 226 of 2020, under Sections 188, 269 IPC and Section 51B Disaster Management Act, Police Station Belhar Kala, District Sant Kabir Nagar, 4 Bail Application No. 27422 of 2025 Mohd. Rashid Ali Vs. Rashid Ali Vs. State of U.P. (xiv) Case Crime No. Nil of 2020, under Section 3/4 Goonda Act, Police Station Belhar Kala, District Sant Kabir Nagar, (xv) Case Crime No. 248 of 2022, under Section 10 U.P. Control of Goondas Act, P.S. Belhar Kala, District Sant Kabir Nagar, (xvi) Case Crime No. 236 of 2024, under Sections 305(e), 331(4), 112, 317(2), 317(4) BNS, Police Station-Belhar Kala, District-Sant Kabir Nagar (base case), (xvii) Case Crime No. 246 of 2024, under Sections 305(e), 331(4), 112, 317(2), 317(4) BNS, Police Station-Belhar Kala, District-Sant Kabir Nagar (base case), (xviii) Case Crime No. 248 of 2024, under Sections 305(e), 331(4), 112, 317(2), 317(4) BNS, Police Station-Belhar Kala, District-Sant Kabir Nagar (base case), (xix) Case Crime No. 19 of 2025, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, police station Belhar Kala, district Sant Kabir Nagar (present case). 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find substance in the submissions of learned state counsel that apart from this case, the applicant has a long criminal history of total 18 other criminal cases as noted above but, out of which, the applicant has disclosed only 04 cases 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 5 Bail Application No. 27422 of 2025 Mohd. Rashid Ali Vs. State of U.P. 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." 6 Bail Application No. 27422 of 2025 Mohd. Rashid Ali Vs. State of U.P. 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 7 Bail Application No. 27422 of 2025 Mohd. Rashid Ali Vs. State of U.P. 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 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 8 Bail Application No. 27422 of 2025 Mohd. Rashid Ali Vs. State of U.P. 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 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 :- 18.8.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad