B. N.Sapru, J. - (1.) THIS is an application in a pending writ petition which has been admitted. In it, it is prayed that further investigation in Crime No. 547 of 1986 under sections 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 2/3 of U. P. Gangesters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) may be stayed. It is further prayed that the petitioner's bail application should be considered ignoring the provisions of section 2/3 of the Act.
(2.) IN Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1616 of 1986 arising out of the order of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Application No. 4925 of 1986 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no 2584 of 1986 the Supreme Court has observed that while considering an application for bail the Court shall not ignore the provisions of Section 2/3 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N. K. Roy, has contended that the provisions of Section 19 (4) (b) of the Act are bad. Section 19 (4), so far as it is relevant for the purposes of the present case, provides :- " (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless :- (a) where the public prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. " The main provision in section 19 (4) (b) is " no person accused of an offence under this Act or any rule made thereunder shall be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail ". Learned counsel argued that the Court can only be satisfied that there are grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence only after the trial concludes and after considering the entire evidence on record. We do not interpret the words " reasonable grounds " to mean the grounds emerging after the trial but the words reasonable grounds are to be interpreted in the context of a bail application having been moved in a pending case. Section 19 (4) is a provision relating to the grant of bail which is a step prior to the conclusion of the trial. We are interpreting the words " reasonable grounds " occurring in the sub-section (4) of Section 19 as meaning that on the prima facie material available on the record or in the police papers the Court can come to the conclusion that the accused charged is not guilty of any such offence or is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. This prima facie satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of any such offence or is not likely to commit any offence while on bail is thus required to be taken into consideration by the Special Judge while considering the application for bail. The security of the law abiding citizens is the concern of the State and if the State provides that an offender should not be granted bail in certain types of crime and restrictions are placed on the power of the Court, in our opinion, cannot be termed as unreasonable. We cannot, therefore, accede to the prayer of the learned counsel to direct that the provisions of Section 2/3 of the Act should be ignored by the Court while dealing with the bail application of the applicant nor can we direct that the Special Judge should ignore the provisions of Section 19 (4) (b) of the Act while deciding the bail application.
(3.) WE direct that if the petitioner applies for bail the Special Judge shall apply the provisions of Section 19 (4) (b) of the Act in the manner we have indicated above while disposing of the bail application.;