Allahabad High Court

FARUKH MUHAMMAD SHIKALGARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail under Section 19(4)(b) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Farukh Muhammad Shikalgar under Sections 2(b)(i) and 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, did not disclose any act falling within the definition of "gang" or "gangster", and that he had already been granted bail in a related case. 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. The order imposed standard conditions of personal bond, sureties, non‑tampering, non‑pressurising of witnesses and attendance before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR under the U.P. Gangsters Act discloses a cognizable offence within the meaning of the Act.
Whether bail can be granted under Section 19(4)(b) of the U.P. Gangsters Act in the present circumstances.
Whether there is a likelihood of the accused 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(b)(i), 3(1)

Subjects

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

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12212 of 2026

Farukh Muhammad Shikalgar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shashi Dhar Shukla
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.58 of 2026, under Section 2(b)(i), 3(1) of
the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the gang chart,
one case is shown against the applicant and in the said case 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 solitary criminal case 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
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
BAIL No. 12212 of 2026
2

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- Farukh Muhammad Shikalgar, 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…