Allahabad High Court
YASH SAINIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Yash Saini, who was arrested under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, did not disclose any act falling within the statutory definition of "gang" or "gangster", and that he had previously been granted bail in multiple related cases. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. Relying on Section 19(4)(b) of the Act and the applicant’s assurance that he would not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, the court found no reason to deny bail. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions, and directed that any breach could lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act is maintainable given the alleged vagueness of the allegations.
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 19(4)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — s. 19(4)(b), 2, 3
Subjects
- bail
- Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act
- criminal procedure
- FIR validity
- presumption of innocence
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12283 of 2026
Yash Saini
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manish Kumar Singh, Pavan Kishore
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.P.Tripathi,
learned A.G.A. 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. 54 of 2026, under Section 2/3 of the
U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut during the pendency of the 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 six
cases. In the said cases 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
BAIL No. 12283 of 2026
2
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 23.11.2025.
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- Yash Saini, involved in the aforesaid case, be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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;
(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial
court; and,
(iv) shall appear on first Sunday of every month at the Police Station
concerned.
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
Lbm/-
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…