Allahabad High Court

SURAJ @ MUKHIYAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail under the provisions of the U.P. Gangsters Act.

Summary

The applicant, Suraj @ Mukhiya, sought bail in a case filed under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, alleging that the FIR was vague and did not disclose a specific gang‑related offence. The applicant argued that he had previously been granted bail in four other gang‑related cases and that the present FIR was based merely on pending cases, not on new serious allegations. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. Relying on Section 19(4)(b) of the Act and the applicant’s assurance that he would not commit further offences, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, the court granted bail without commenting on the merits. The bail was conditioned on a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with specific undertakings.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 19(4)(b) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 given the alleged vagueness of the FIR.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of committing further offences, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses if released on bail.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

bail
U.P. Gangsters Act
Section 19(4)(b)
public order
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12151 of 2026

Suraj @ Mukhiya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shubham Kesarwani
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.01 of 2026, under Section 2/3 of the U.P.
Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station
Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the gang chart,
four cases are shown against the applicant and in the said cases the applicant
has been enlarged on bail. It is next contended that apart from the cases
mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant is involved in another case. In the
said case also he 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,
BAIL No. 12151 of 2026
2

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
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
8.7.2025.

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- Suraj @ Mukhiya, 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…