# Amit (In Jail) v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 289 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-06-29 - **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 8720 of 2021 - **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-47087 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote (A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 392 - offence of robbery , Section 411 - Dishonestly receiving stolen property - rights of the accused are important, but equally important is the societal interest for bringing the offender to book and for the system to send right message to all in the society - Undue sympathy for offender would be more harm to justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law.(Para - 9) Informant lodged F.I.R. with regard to an incident - against two unknown persons for the offence of robbery - allegation - snatching of gold chain .(Para - 3) HELD:- The applicant is a repeated offender and has a long criminal history of 17 cases . Applicant has misused the liberty of bail granted to him on earlier occasions by repeatedly indulging himself in such offences. Considering long criminal history of the applicant and his conduct, this Court is of the view that there is no good ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage. (Para - 7,10) Bail application rejected. (E-6) ## Text 7 All. Amit Vs. State of U.P. 289 liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 7. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. 8. 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. ---------- (2021)07ILR A289 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.06.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 8720 of 2021 Amit ...Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Sri Shri Krishna Tripathi Counsel for the Opposite Party: A.G.A. (A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 392 - offence of robbery , Section 411 - Dishonestly receiving stolen property - rights of the accused are important, but equally important is the societal interest for bringing the offender to book and for the system to send right message to all in the society - Undue sympathy for offender would be more harm to justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law.(Para - 9) Informant lodged F.I.R. with regard to an incident - against two unknown persons for the offence of robbery - allegation - snatching of gold chain .(Para - 3) HELD:- The applicant is a repeated offender and has a long criminal history of 17 cases . Applicant has misused the liberty of bail granted to him on earlier occasions by repeatedly indulging himself in such offences. Considering long criminal history of the applicant and his conduct, this Court is of the view that there is no good ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage. (Para - 7,10) Bail application rejected. (E-6) (Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Brief holder appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. through video conferencing and perused the record of the case. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 466 of 2020, under Section 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station-Panki, DistrictKanpur Nagar during the pendency of trial. 3. As per the prosecution case, facts of the case in brief are that on 04.10.2020 informant Smt. Pushpa Devi lodged F.I.R. at 16:40 O'clock as Case Crime No. 466 of 2020 at P.S. Panki, District-Kanpur City with regard to an incident that took place on 04.10.2020 at 12:30 p.m. against two unknown persons for the offence of robbery under 392 I.P.C. alleging inter alia that on 04.10.2020 she along with her daughter Sunita Jain and daughter-in-law 290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Priti Gupta had left her house for Rambagh by auto-rickshaw No. U.P. 78 CT 3306. Thereafter they reached near power house market, where her daughter got an autorickshaw stopped and went to purchase fruits. Meanwhile the auto-rickshaw driver went to take pan masala. At that time she along with her daughter-in-law were sitting in the auto rickshaw. At the same time two bike-borne men approached their autorickshaw on Apache motorcycle from Kalyanpur side. The person sitting behind the rider on the motorcycle had covered his face and before she could understand something,they fled towards Panki temple snatching her gold chain. 4. It is also the case of prosecution that on 21.10.2020 police apprehended two persons, namely Amit (applicant) and coaccused Kundan using necessary force near Central School and recovered four chains of yellow metal and rupees two thousand from their possession. It is also stated that at the time police tried to apprehend them, they fired at the police personal by country made pistol. They were asked to surrender themselves but they again started loading their pistol, then the police personnel in their self defence also fired upon the accused persons under compelling circumstances, which hit the accused on their legs. On frisking them, two chains of yellow metal, an amount of rupees one thousand, one country made pistol of 315 bore, one live cartridge of 315 bore and one empty cartridge which was lying at the spot were recovered from the possession of applicant Amit and two chain of yellow metal,one thousand rupees, one country made pistol of 315 bore, one live cartridge of 315 bore and and one empty cartridge which was lying at the spot were recovered from the possession of co-accused Kundan. Thereafter separate F.I.R. was lodged as Case Crime No. 0063 of 2020, under Section 307 I.P.C. against the applicant and co-accused Kundan at P.S. Armapur, District Kanpur City connecting the applicant with present Case Crime No.466 of 2020 as well as in case crime no.257 of 2020 and 258/2020 under Section 392 I.P.C. registered at police station Najirabad, district Kanpur City. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that police after apprehending falsely implicated the applicant in six cases (crime no.63of 2020 under Section 307 I.P.C., crime no.64 of 2020 under Section 3/25.Arms Act, crime no.481 0f 2020 under Section 392,411 I.P.C., crime no.737 of 2020 under Section 392,411 I.P.C., crime no.257 of 2020 under Section 392, 411 I.P.C. and crime no.258 of 2020 under Section 392,411 I.P.C.), out of which applicant has been granted bail in three cases being case crime numbers 63 of 2020, 481of 2020 and 737 of 2020 by orders dated 04.12.2020, 15.12.2020 and 11.12.2020 of the concerned court below. It is next submitted that false recovery has been shown from the possession of applicant. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. In paragraph no. 12 of the bail application it is mentioned that the applicant has a criminal history of 11 cases which have been planted against the applicant. Lastly it is submitted that applicant is in jail since 21.10.2020 and on granting bail in this case, the applicant will appear before the trial court on each dates and will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that applicant is habitual offender and has a long criminal history of 17 cases apart from present case. It is also submitted that in case applicant is granted bail, he will again 7 All. Amit Vs. State of U.P. 291 indulge in similar offence. Details of the criminal history of the applicant as pointed out by the learned A.G.A. are given herein below : "1. Case Crime No. 257 of 2020, under Section 392/411 I.P.C., P.S. Nazirabad, District-Kanpur City. 2. Case Crime No. 01 of 2020, under Section 394 I.P.C., P.S. Kakwan, District-Kanpur City. 3. Case Crime No. 279 of 2012, Section 356 I.P.C., P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District-Kanpur City. 4. Case Crime No. 214 of 2012, under Section 392 I.P.C., P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District-Kanpur City. 5. Case Crime No. 189 of 2012, under Section 392 I.P.C., P.S. Shivrajpur, District-Kanpur City. 6. Case Crime No. 159 of 2012, under Section 356 I.P.C., P.S. Shivrajpur, District-Kanpur City. 7. Case Crime No. 207 of 2012, under Section 392/411 I.P.C., P.S. Kakadeo, District-Kanpur City. 8. Case Crime No. 191 of 2012, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Shivrajpur, District-Kanpur City. 9. Case Crime No. 337 of 2012, under Section 3(1) Gangster Act, P.S. Kakadeo, District-Kanpur City. 10. Case Crime No. 548 of 2012, under Section 392/411 I.P.C., P.S. Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur City. 11. Case Crime No. 1153 of 2009, under Section 18/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur City. 12. Case Crime No. 218 of 2019, under Section 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Kalyanpur, District-Kanpur City. 13. Case Crime No. 258 of 2020, under Section 392 I.P.C., P.S. Nazirabad, District-Kanpur City. 14. Case Crime No. 481 of 2020, under Section 392, P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District-Kanpur City. 15. Case Crime No. 737 of 2020, under Section 392 I.P.C., P.S. Barra, District-Kanpur City. 16. Case Crime No. 63 of 2020, under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Armapur, District-Kanpur City. 17. Case Crime No. 64 of 2020, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Armapur, District-Kanpur City." 7. After having heard the argument of learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., I find that the applicant is a repeated offender and has a long criminal history of 17 cases as mentioned above. Offence under Section 392 I.P.C. is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. Record indicates that applicant has misused the liberty of bail granted to him on earlier occasions by repeatedly indulging himself in such offences. In the circumstances this Court is not satisfied that applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 8. A spurt in incidents of chainsnatching is a matter of grave concern and has created fear psychosis rendering many women reluctant to step out of their home. Even as the chain-snatchers continue to prowl the city with repeated incidents of them targeting women, a sense of fear has been instilled in women who have now stopped wearing gold ornaments or at the most wear a very thin one that is not even visible. Such incidents need to be taken seriously and the offenders must be instilled with a sense of fear so that women feel safe and free as such incidents not only cause terror but also restrict their mobility. 292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 9. Undoubtedly rights of the accused are important, but equally important is the societal interest for bringing the offender to book and for the system to send right message to all in the society. Undue sympathy for offender would be more harm to justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. 10. On account of the reasons mentioned above and considering long criminal history of the applicant and his conduct, this Court is of the view that there is no good ground to release the applicant on bail at this stage. 11. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, bail application of the applicant is rejected at this stage. 12. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below as well as to the informant of this case within two weeks. ---------- (2021)07ILR A292 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.06.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 14291 of 2021 Zahid ...Applicant (In Jail) Versus Union of India ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Salman Ahmad, Sri Naseem Ahmad Counsel for the Opposite Party: Sri Ashish Pandey (A) Criminal Law - Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 - Sections 8/29/22 , Section 37 - Bail on the ground of parity of order - Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable , Section 50 - search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate - recording of finding in terms of section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act is a sine qua non for granting bail - before granting bail for the offence under N.D.P.S. Act twin conditions as provided under Section 37(1)(b) (i) and (ii) have to be satisfied.(Para -10,11) Recovered and seized 61000 bottles of 100 ml each of Phensedyl syrup containing Codeine Phosphate - serial No. 28 of the list of Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances - much more than the commercial quantity - provisions of section 37 of Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act are attracted in this case .(Para - 9) HELD:- Neither any reason has been recorded nor provisions of section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act has been considered in the said order while granting bail to the co-accused. The benefit of parity of order dated 15.06.2021 of co-accused cannot be given to present applicant. Each and every case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough, because even a single significant detail may alter entire aspect of the case.(Para - 10,12,13) Bail application on the ground of parity rejected. (E-6) List of Cases cited: 1. Sonu Vs Sonu Yadav & anr., AIR 2021 SC 201 2. U.O.I. Vs Prateek Shukla, AIR, 2021 SC 1509 3. Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Laxman Prasad Soni, etc., Criminal Appeal No. 438-440 of 2021 4. U.O.I. Vs Rattan Mallik @ Habul, 2009 (1) SCC (Crl) 831 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.)