Allahabad High Court

AMARJEET YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

Amarjeet Yadav applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No.24 of 2026) filed under Sections 2 and 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant argued that the FIR was vague, did not allege any act fitting the definition of a "gang" or "gangster", and that only a single case was shown against him, for which he had already been granted bail. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. The Court examined the material on record, noted Section 19(4)(b) of the Act, and, without expressing a view on the merits, found reasonable grounds to believe the applicant would not commit another offence or tamper with evidence. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, pressurising witnesses, and mandating appearance in court. The order also permitted the prosecution to move for bail cancellation if any condition is breached.

Issues considered

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

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — s. 19(4)(b), 2, 3(1)

Subjects

bail
U.P. Gangsters Act
Section 19(4)(b)
FIR
public order
criminal procedure
surety

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12295 of 2026

Amarjeet Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amrita Singh
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.24 of 2026, under Section 2/3(1) of
the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for
short, the "Gangsters Act"), Police Station Narahi, District Ballia 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
BAIL No. 12295 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 08.03.2026.

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- Amarjeet Yadav, 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
Lbm/-

Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…