Allahabad High Court

RANJAN YADAV @ NAINA YADAVversusSTATE 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 Act.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Ranjan Yadav under Section 2/3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant contended that the FIR was vague, did not allege any act falling within the definition of "gang" or "gangster", and that he had already been granted bail in two other related cases. The State opposed the bail but could not effectively counter the applicant’s submissions. Relying on Section 19(4)(b) of the Act and finding no reason to believe the applicant would commit a crime, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, the court granted bail without expressing an opinion on the merits. The bail was conditioned on a personal bond, two sureties, appearance before the trial court, and a prohibition on tampering with evidence or pressurising witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR under the U.P. Gangsters Act is maintainable in the absence of specific allegations defining a gang or gangster.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of committing further offences, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses if released on bail.
Whether Section 19(4)(b) of the U.P. Gangsters Act permits the grant of bail in the present circumstances.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

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

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12214 of 2026

Ranjan Yadav @ Naina Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sitaram Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned
Brief Holder for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2026, under Section 2/3(1) of the
U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station- Chitbada Gaon, District- Ballia, during the pendency of 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 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,
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
BAIL No. 12214 of 2026
2

14.08.2025.

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- Ranjan Yadav @ Naina Yadav, involved in the
aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned
subject to conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

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
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…