The Supreme Court delivered a sharp rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh government on Thursday, criticizing it for what it termed as “persecution” rather than prosecution. The bench, consisting of Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran, highlighted the state’s practice of including defunct cases—those already quashed or resulting in acquittal—in its affidavit against individuals charged under the state’s stringent anti-gangsters law.
During the proceedings, the court expressed its dismay over the inclusion of irrelevant past cases in the state’s response to petitions filed by the accused seeking bail. “In the counter, you are including the cases which are quashed and where he (petitioner) is acquitted. If that is your modus operandi, then you are not a prosecutor, then you are a persecutor,” remarked the bench, emphasizing the inappropriate nature of the state’s legal strategy.*
The criticism came amidst the hearing of four separate pleas by individuals challenging the November 2024 orders of the Allahabad High Court, which had denied their bail requests. The accused, who are brothers and sons of a member of the legislative council from a prominent political party, argued through their counsel, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, that they had been repeatedly targeted with new FIRs each time they secured bail in previous cases.
Highlighting the systemic issue, Luthra pointed out the excessive number of FIRs—28 against one petitioner and 15 against the others—most of which ended in acquittal or bail, with some even being quashed by the Supreme Court itself. “There is a consistent conduct of the state authorities that they keep on registering FIRs. I don’t know whether my client is safer in jail or outside,” Luthra expressed his concern over the state’s tactics.
Opposition from the state’s counsel centered on one of the pending charges of gangrape, invoking Section 19(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, which restricts bail unless the court is satisfied with the innocence of the accused. However, the bench noted that the alleged gangrape case had seen bail granted by a Saharanpur trial court in July 2022, with no subsequent action by the state to cancel it.
Referencing a landmark judgement regarding the constitutional guarantee under Article 21, the bench asserted that statutory restrictions could not override fundamental rights, leading them to incline towards granting bail given the unlikely near-term conclusion of the trial.
The court further directed that the accused deposit their passports with the trial judge to mitigate any flight risk concerns raised by the state, underlining the requirement for the petitioners to attend trial proceedings regularly and cooperate fully.
