New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government saying it was not a "prosecutor but a persecutor" for having defunct cases in its reply against the petitioners’, in a case registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
The matter came up before a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran. The bench, referring to the state's affidavit on the plea by one of the accused persons, questioned why the state government included cases against him, which were either quashed or in which he was acquitted.
"In the counter, you are including the cases which are quashed and where he (petitioner) is acquitted”, said the bench. "If that is your modus operandi, then you are not a prosecutor, then you are a persecutor," it further added.
The bench granted bail to four persons facing charges under the anti-gangsters’ law in the state. The apex court was hearing four separate pleas filed by the accused who challenged the November 2024 orders of the Allahabad High Court rejecting their bail applications.
The bench told the Uttar Pradesh government counsel if a petitioner is already released on bail in some matters, if some proceedings are quashed etc., isn't it necessary for the counsel to place before the court the true factual position?
During the hearing, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing the petitioners, said his clients' were brothers and were framed in the cases lodged after 2017 as their father was an MLC belonging to a political party. It was argued before the bench that when the petitioners got bail in one matter, they were booked in another FIR to ensure they never got the reprieve.
Citing the state government's affidavit, the counsel argued that one of his clients was involved in 28 FIRs whereas others had 15 FIRs against them. Opposing the bail pleas, the state government counsel said one of the cases inlcuded alleged gangrape charges.
Citing a chart placed before it, the bench said it showed the petitioners were involved in several cases but observed in most cases, the petitioners were either released on bail or acquitted. The bench, in the alleged gangrape case, said bail was granted by a trial court at Saharanpur in July 2022 but no step was taken by the state to seek its cancellation even after two and a half years.
The top court noted that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future. The state's counsel said the father of the petitioners fled the country and the petitioners' would do the same if released on bail. The bench was informed that their passports were impounded. "We direct the passport to be deposited with the trial judge so as to take care of the apprehension of the state," said the bench, adding that they should regularly attend the trial proceedings and cooperate in its expeditious disposal.
