Mere Passage of Time Is No Ground for Bail under Gangster Act: Allahabad High Court Rejects Second Bail Plea of Habitual Offender

"Unless There Is Substantial Change in Fact-Situation, Second Bail Application Cannot Be Entertained" - In a firmly worded decision Allahabad High Court dismissed the second bail application filed by Imran Mulla, booked under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, observing that there was no fresh ground to warrant reconsideration of bail. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal ruled that the statutory requirement of satisfaction under Section 19(4)(b) was not fulfilled, and the applicant's long criminal history and repeat invocation of the Gangster Act rendered him a continued threat to public order.

At the heart of the ruling lies a powerful reminder by the Court: "A second bail application cannot be entertained on the same facts after a former prayer was rejected unless substantial changes in the fact-situation are indicated. Otherwise, Courts would be flooded with frivolous repeated prayers for bail."

The applicant, Imran Mulla, has a record of 11 criminal cases, spanning over a decade, including charges under the Cow Slaughter Act, Arms Act, various sections of the IPC, and multiple Gangster Act prosecutions, one in 2015 and another in 2024, the latter forming the subject of the current bail application.

"Court Cannot Record Satisfaction That Accused Will Not Reoffend While on Bail": Section 19(4)(b) Acts as a Bar in Gangster Act Bail Cases

The Court underscored the special legislative character of the Gangster Act, emphasizing that Section 19(4)(b), which contains a non-obstante clause, is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive legal bar that must be strictly applied.

The Court reiterated: “From reading of Section 19(4)(b), it is clear that before proceeding to grant bail in the Gangster Act... the Court must record reasons that the applicant would not commit any crime in future.”

In Imran Mulla’s case, the Court held that such a judicial satisfaction was not possible, noting that "this is not the first time that the Gangster Act has been imposed upon the applicant", and citing his continued criminal activities even after being released on bail in previous cases.

"Judicial Discipline and Finality Must Be Maintained—Second Bail Plea on Identical Grounds Is Abuse of Process"

Dismissing the application outright, Justice Agarwal relied on the binding precedent of the Division Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P., 1998 (37) ACC 287, which had itself been based on the Supreme Court’s classic ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292.

The Court quoted the Supreme Court’s caution in Buddhikota Subha Rao: “When we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes, which are of little or no consequence.”

In this light, the Court found that the second bail application was identical in substance to the first, relying merely on continued incarceration and a bail order passed for a co-accused, which was not persuasive given the applicant’s individual criminal profile.

"Parity Cannot Override Personal Criminal History—Bail to Co-Accused No Ground for Releasing Hardened Offender"

Counsel for Imran Mulla attempted to argue for parity, submitting that a co-accused with even more cases (33 in number) had been granted bail by a coordinate bench. But the Court rejected this parity claim, holding that bail considerations must remain individualized, especially under special statutes like the Gangster Act.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508, the High Court warned: “It was imperative for the Courts to scrutinize every aspect and not capriciously record that the accused was entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.”

Justice Agarwal found the comparison irrelevant, stating, "Looking to the fact that applicant has long criminal history... and twice Gangster Act has been imposed upon him, no satisfaction can be recorded under Section 19(4)(b) of the Gangster Act."

"Courts Must Not Be Compelled to Revisit Denied Reliefs Without Just Cause—Liberty Is Important, But So Is Societal Protection"

Acknowledging the constitutional importance of personal liberty, the Court nevertheless reiterated the balancing principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sudha Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 781, stating:

"Liberty is important, even that of a person charged with crime, but it is important for the Courts to recognize the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims/witnesses, if such accused is released on bail."

Justice Agarwal noted that Imran Mulla’s record includes serious charges such as attempt to murder, arms offences, and repeated violations under cow protection laws, and stated that granting bail in such circumstances would risk public safety and the integrity of the criminal justice process.

Public Interest Must Prevail Over Individual Liberty in Cases Involving Habitual Offenders

In refusing bail, the Allahabad High Court not only reaffirmed the strict requirements of Section 19(4)(b) of the Gangster Act but also sent a clear message against misuse of judicial forums through repeated bail attempts without genuine cause. The judgment stands as a judicial reminder that liberty, though sacred, must yield to the collective interest of maintaining law and order.

The Court concluded: “No case for releasing the applicant on bail is made out. If the applicant is enlarged on bail, he would be a threat to the society at large.”

Date of Decision: 30 October 2025