CASE DATE:
22nd March, 2024
PARTIES:-
Applicant: Amar Mani Tripathi
Opposite Party: State of UP
BENCH/JUDGE:
Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:-
1. Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act:-
This section deals with the prevention of gangsterism and anti-social activities in Uttar Pradesh. It empowers authorities to take preventive measures against individuals involved in such activities.
2. Sections 364, 364A, 216A, 212, 120B of the Indian Penal Code:-
These sections of the IPC cover various offenses such as kidnapping, abducting with intent to murder, harbouring offenders and criminal conspiracy, among others.
3. Section 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:-
These sections deal with the procedure for the proclamation for persons absconding and attachment of property of persons absconding, respectively. They outline the steps to be taken when an accused person is absconding from the court proceedings.
4. Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:-
This section allows a person accused of a bailable offense to be released on executing a bond without sureties for appearance before a court. However, it’s not applicable to cases involving serious non-bailable offenses.
5. Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:-
This section deals with the framing of charges in criminal cases. It lays down the procedure for formally charging the accused with the offense(s) they are alleged to have committed.
SUBJECT:-
The case involves the applicant’s bail plea rejection under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act after serving a 20-year sentence. Despite continuous issuance of non-bailable warrants, the applicant failed to appear, leading to further legal action. The court upheld the rejection, emphasizing the need for regular bail application.
OVERVIEW:-
Before the filing of the present application, the case revolves around the applicant being granted bail on 01.02.2002 under specific IPC sections. Subsequently, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the applicant under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. The applicant served a 20-year sentence and claimed unawareness of certain legal actions due to incarceration. The State countered, asserting that the applicant was duly notified of the proceedings, including the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The applicant failed to appear in court despite continuous issuance of non-bailable warrants, leading to the initiation of proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C. The applicant’s bail application was rejected on 01.11.2023, leading to the filing of the present application.
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT:-
1. Whether the criminal proceeding under the Gangster Act, based on a single case, should be quashed?
2. Whether the applicant, already on bail for certain IPC sections, could furnish bail bond under the Gangsters Act instead of seeking regular bail?
CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:-
- The learned counsel of the applicant, Mr. Ajatshatru Pandey contended that the applicant was not served with notices, summons or non-bailable warrants despite being continuously in jail from October 2005 to August 24, 2023.
- It was argued that the applicant, having served a 20-year sentence, should have been allowed to furnish bail bonds instead of appearing before the trial court.
CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:-
- The State contended that the non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicant, but there was no evidence of their service while the applicant was in jail.
- Secondly, the GA argued that despite being aware of the warrants against him, the applicant did not obtain bail after his release from jail.
- It was argued that the provisions of Section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) could not be applied in cases of serious non-bailable offenses.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:-
- The court noted a lack of sincere efforts by the trial court to ensure proper service of notices, summons or non-bailable warrants to the applicant.
- It observed a possibility of manipulation in the legal process due to the extended duration of the case.
- The court highlighted the settled law that bail for newly added non-bailable offenses cannot be granted automatically based on previous bail granted for other offenses.
- It emphasized that Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be applied in cases of serious non-bailable offenses.
- The court stressed that the decision to grant bail should be based on the specific circumstances of the case and the parameters established for bail under the law.
JUDGMENT:-
The court upheld the impugned order and ruled against the applicant, while offering to decide a regular bail application promptly. It rejected the applicant’s plea, citing settled law that bail for new non-bailable offenses cannot rely on previous bail. Thus, it emphasized that Section 88 of the CrPC doesn’t apply to serious offenses.
CONCLUSION:-
The case highlighted procedural discrepancies in issuing warrants and the applicant’s failure to appear despite being aware of charges. The court rejected the plea for bail under Section 88 CrPC, stressing that serious offenses require bail under relevant provisions. It upheld the impugned order while offering prompt consideration for a regular bail application.
