Allahabad High Court

SARTAJversusSTATE 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 Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Sartaj in a case registered under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant contended that the FIR was vague, did not satisfy the statutory definition of a "gang" or "gangster", and that he had already been granted bail in a related case. The State opposed the bail but could not effectively counter the applicant’s submissions. Relying on Section 19(4)(b) of the Act and being satisfied that the applicant was unlikely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, the court granted bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case. The bail was conditioned on furnishing a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard conditions such as not tampering with evidence, not pressurising witnesses, and appearing before the trial court as required.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR filed under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is maintainable given the alleged vagueness of the allegations.
Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 19(4)(b) of the Act despite the pending trial.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of 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
criminal procedure
FIR maintainability
public order
evidence tampering
witness intimidation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12225 of 2026

Sartaj
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Zafeer Ahmad
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.32 of 2025, under Section 2/3 of the U.P.
Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station
Mainather, District Moradabad, 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
5.3.2025.

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
BAIL No. 12225 of 2026
2

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- Sartaj, 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…