Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

PRINCE SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

The court granted bail to the applicant, subject to a personal bond, two sureties and specified conditions, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

Summary

Prince Sharma applied for bail in a case (Crime No. 375 of 2026) filed under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He contended that the prosecution was based on a single criminal case shown in a gang chart for which he had already been released on bail, and that he was falsely implicated due to police rivalry and was not a gang member. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, without expressing any view on the merits, allowed the bail application, directing the applicant to furnish a personal bond and two sureties, and imposing conditions that he not tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, and appear before the trial court as required. The court also ordered verification of the applicant’s and sureties’ identity, status, and residence before accepting the bonds. Breach of any condition would result in cancellation of bail.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail can be granted to an accused under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 during the pendency of trial.
  • Whether allegations of false implication and police rivalry justify the grant of bail.
  • Whether the court may impose conditions such as non‑tampering with evidence, non‑intimidation of witnesses, and verification of sureties in a bail order.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • U.P. Gangster Act
  • false implication
  • police rivalry
  • conditions of bail
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31688 of 2026

Prince Sharma
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                  :    Amit Rai, Gaurav Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)             :    G.A.

Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.24 out of 318)

                         HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Shubham Jadaun, Advocate holding brief of Sri Amit Rai,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Case
Crime No.375 of 2026, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Naimandi, District-
Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution
under the Gangsters Act have been launched against the applicant on the
basis of one criminal case shown in the gang chart in which he has already
been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. The detail of criminal case has
been mentioned in the affidavit accompanying the bail application. He has
been falsely implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. He is not the
member of any gang. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the
applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since
28.07.2026. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is
                                                                                              BAIL No. 31688 of 2026
                                                                     2


                                    allowed. Let the applicant- Prince Sharma, be released on bail in the
                                    aforementioned case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to
                                    the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties,
                                    with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate
                                    witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

                                    7. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. Identity, status
                                    and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court
                                    concerned before the bonds are accepted.



                                                                                               (Krishan Pahal,J.)
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    (Ravi Kant)




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

Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.