Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24594 of 2021 Applicant :- Manish Bansal Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dwivedi,Vidya Sagar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This is a second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure which has been filed by the applicant Manish Bansal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 395 of 2020, under Section 2/3 Gangsters and Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986, registered at P.S. Sector-39, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 47465 of 2020 (Manish Bansal Vs. State of U.P.).
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court but the new ground and the sole ground is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.07.2020 which has been stated in para 4 of the affidavit in support of the bail application. It is argued that when previously the first bail application of the applicant was rejected he was in jail for about five months but now the period of detention has increased by seven months more and is more than a year and as such the bail be considered on the ground of the period of detention. It is argued that co- accused Sumit Kumar and Ajay Sharma have been granted bail by this Court, a passing reference about the said fact is made in para 12 of the affidavit. Further, para 13 of the affidavit has been placed which states that according to the police report, the court remanded the applicant and the applicant is in jail since 13.03.2020. No other ground has been pressed before the Court in support of the present second bail application.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits vide order dated 18.12.2020. It is argued that even the period of detention as is being argued and the applicant is stated to be in jail since 13.07.2020 is not excessive. It is argued that the applicant is a hardened criminal.
The Apex Court in the case of Sudha Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another : Crl. Appeal No. 448 of 2021 vide judgment dated 23.04.2021 has observed that the court should recognize the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims/witnesses. It was further observed that it is necessary for the courts to consider the impact of the release of such persons on bail on the witnesses yet to be examined and the innocent members of the family of victims who might be the next victims.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the records and as per the dictum of the Apex Court, this Court finds that there is no new and fresh ground in the present bail application. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merit considering the fact that the applicant is a habitual criminal and involved in nine cases. I do not find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)