Allahabad High Court

BHURAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Bhura under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, relating to a pending criminal case (Crime No.31 of 2026). The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, lacking specific allegations that fit the statutory definition of a "gang" or "gangster," and that he had previously been granted bail in two other cases. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. Relying on Section 19(4)(b) of the Act and finding no reason to believe the applicant would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, the court granted bail without commenting on the merits of the case. The bail was conditioned on a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard conditions such as not tampering with evidence, not pressurising witnesses, and appearing before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is maintainable given the alleged vagueness of the allegations.
Whether bail can be granted under Section 19(4)(b) of the Act in the absence of a clear risk of the accused committing further offences or tampering with evidence.
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the pendency of the trial.

Legislation cited

U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — s. 19(4)(b), 2, 3

Subjects

bail
U.P. Gangsters Act
public order
definition of gang
Section 19(4)(b)
criminal procedure
presumption of innocence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11270 of 2026

Bhura
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Raj Pandey, Shubham Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard counsel for the applicant as well as Sri N.K. Sharma, learned
A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.31 of 2026, under Section 2/3 of the U.P.
Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station
Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahar, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the gang chart,
two cases are shown against the applicant and in the said cases the applicant
has been enlarged on bail.

4. He further submits that in the F.I.R., in issue, the allegations with regard
to disturbing the public order, as also regarding gaining undue temporal,
pecuniary, material or other advantage of like nature against the applicant
are vague. In absence of allegation concerning an act or omission on the part
of an accused, covered by the definition of terms "gang" and "gangster" as
provided under Section 2 of the Gangsters Act, no F.I.R. is maintainable. In
the instant case, the F.I.R. is based upon the pending criminal cases and not
upon any new allegations or discovery of facts having serious reflection on
the society, for which purpose the Gangsters Act was enacted.

5. It is also submitted that considering the facts of the case, as stated above,
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of
the offence under the Gangsters Act and that he would not commit the
BAIL No. 11270 of 2026
2

offence while on bail nor would try to tamper the evidence or influence the
witnesses in any manner whatsoever it may be. The applicant is in jail since
25.2.2026.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

7. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material
available on record as well as taking note of Section 19(4)(b) of the
Gangsters Act, in light of the submission of counsel for the applicant to the
effect that while on bail in this case, the applicant would not commit any
crime/offence nor would try to tamper the evidence or influence the
witnesses in any manner, whatsoever it may be, and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is
entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Bhura, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions
that:

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
April 20, 2026
S.S.

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…