Allahabad High Court

HARVINDRAversusSTATE 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 Harvindra, who was in custody since 24 January 2026 for an offence under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant’s counsel argued that the FIR was vague, did not satisfy the statutory definition of a "gang" or "gangster", and that only a single case was shown against him, making the FIR untenable. The State opposed bail but could not effectively counter the applicant’s submissions. Relying on Section 19(4)(b) of the Gangsters 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 order directed the applicant to furnish a personal bond, two sureties, and comply with conditions prohibiting evidence tampering, witness pressure, and mandating appearance before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR filed under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is maintainable given alleged vagueness and lack of a defined "gang" or "gangster".
Whether bail can be granted to the accused during the pendency of trial under Section 19(4)(b) of the Gangsters Act.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — s. 19(4)(b), 2, 3

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
U.P. Gangsters Act
FIR maintainability
presumption of innocence
section 19(4)(b)

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12261 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Adesh Kumar, Barkha Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manoj Kumar

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 of U.P. and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 846 of 2025, under Sections 2/3 of the
U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short,
the "Gangsters Act"), Police Station- Kankarkhera, District- Meerut, during
the pendency of the trial.
3. 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.
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
24.01.2026.
6. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but
BAIL No. 12261 of 2026
2

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- Harvindra, 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.
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…