Allahabad High Court

SHADABversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail under the Gangsters Act.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Shadab under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, did not specifically allege acts defining a "gang" or "gangster", and that he had previously been granted bail in other related cases. 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 tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, the court, without expressing a view on the merits, granted bail. The court imposed conditions of personal bond, sureties, and restrictions against evidence tampering, witness pressure, and required regular appearances before the police and trial court.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR under the Gangsters Act sufficiently alleges an offence as defined in Section 2 of the Act.
Whether bail can be granted under Section 19(4)(b) of the Gangsters Act in the absence of a clear prima facie case.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh 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
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12172 of 2026

Shadab
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Akif, Irshad Husain
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.0001 of 2026,
under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kotwali Dehat,
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. It is next
contended that apart from the cases mentioned in the gang chart,
the applicant is involved in three cases. In the said cases 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
BAIL No. 12172 of 2026
2

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 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 10.2.2026.

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 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- Shadab, involved in the aforesaid case, be
released on bail on his 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 applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

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

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the
trial court; and
BAIL No. 12172 of 2026
3

(iv) 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.

April 20, 2026
S.S.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…