Allahabad High Court

PRADYUMAN SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pradyuman Singh and Ankit Singh under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicants argued that the FIR was vague, did not specifically allege an act covered by the definition of "gang" or "gangster", and that they had previously been granted bail in six related cases. The State opposed bail but could not refute the submissions. Relying on Section 19(4)(b) of the Act and the applicants' assurances that they would not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, the Court granted bail with conditions. The applicants were ordered to furnish a personal bond and two heavy sureties, and to comply with conditions regarding evidence, witnesses, court appearances, and monthly police station reporting.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is maintainable in the absence of specific allegations fitting the definition of "gang" or "gangster".
Whether bail should be granted under Section 19(4)(b) of the Act considering the risk of the accused committing further offences, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.

Legislation cited

U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — s. 19(4)(b), 2(b)(i), 3(1)

Subjects

bail
U.P. Gangsters Act
criminal procedure
FIR maintainability
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
Section 19(4)(b)

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12163 of 2026

Pradyuman Singh And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Pandey, Shravan Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard counsel for the applicants 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
applicants on bail in Case Crime No.70 of 2026, under Section 2(b)(i), 3(1)
of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986,
Police Station Noorpur, District Bijnor during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that according to the gang
chart, six cases are shown against the applicants and in the said cases the
applicants have 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 applicants
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 applicants are not guilty
of the offence under the Gangsters Act and that he would not commit the
BAIL No. 12163 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 applicants are in jail
since 6.3.2026.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State 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 applicants to the
effect that while on bail in this case, the applicants 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 applicants are
entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicants- Pradyuman Singh and Ankit Singh, involved in the
aforesaid case, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and
two heavy sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court
concerned on the following conditions that:

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

(ii) the applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) the applicants shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial
court; and

(iv) the applicants shall appear on first Sunday of every month at the
Police Station concerned.

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…