Allahabad High Court

MOHD. ALIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Mohd. Ali, who was detained on 13‑03‑2026 in a case under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague and did not satisfy the definition of a "gang" or "gangster" under Section 2 of the Act, rendering it non‑maintainable, and that he posed no risk of committing further offences or tampering with evidence. 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 deny bail, the court granted bail without commenting on the merits of the case, subject to standard conditions and sureties. The order directed the applicant’s release on personal bond and two sureties, with conditions against evidence tampering, witness pressure, and a requirement to appear before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 19(4)(b) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Whether the FIR is maintainable under the definition of "gang" and "gangster" in Section 2 of the Act.
Whether the applicant is likely to commit a further offence, tamper with evidence, or influence 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
criminal procedure
U.P. Gangsters Act
Section 19(4)(b)
FIR maintainability
public order
sureties

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12260 of 2026

Mohd. Ali
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dev Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. At the outset learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is permitted
to correct the date of detention of the applicant in the memo of bail
application.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anupam Anand,
learned Brief Holder for the State of U.P., and perused the record.

3. The instant bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 197 of 2025, under Section 2/3 of the
U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short,
the "Gangsters Act"), Police Station Kotwali Karwi, District Chitrakoot
during the pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the gang
chart, only one case is shown against the applicant and in the said case the
applicant has been enlarged on bail.

5. 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.
BAIL No. 12260 of 2026
2

6. 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
13.03.2026.

7. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but
could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

8. 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.

9. Let the applicant- Mohd. Ali, 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.

10. 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
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…