Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

MUKRIM L@ MUKARRAMversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

Bail was granted to the applicant subject to a personal bond, two sureties and conditions of non‑tampering with evidence, non‑intimidation of witnesses and regular appearance before the trial court.

Summary

Mukrim @ Mukarram applied for bail in a case registered 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 five other criminal cases for which he had already been released on bail, and that he was falsely implicated due to police rivalry and had no criminal history. The applicant had been in custody since 19 August 2026. The State opposed the bail, but the court found no merit in the opposition and, without addressing the substantive merits of the case, granted bail. The court ordered the applicant to furnish a personal bond and two sureties, subject to verification, and imposed conditions that he not tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, and appear before the trial court as required. Any breach of these conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
  • Whether the applicant's claim of false implication and lack of prior criminal history justify bail.
  • What conditions, if any, should be imposed on bail in such cases.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • U.P. Gangster Act
  • false implication
  • criminal history
  • sureties
  • trial pendency
  • conditions of bail

Judgment

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32949 of 2026

Mukrim @ Mukarram
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                         :   Avinash Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                    :   G.A.

Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 28 out of 291)

                          HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for
the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.K.
Shukla, 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. 240 of 2026, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Jhinjhana, District-
Shamli, 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 five criminal cases shown in the gang chart in which he has already
been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. The details of criminal cases
have 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.

5. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 19.8.2026. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.

6. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the
                                                                                               BAIL No. 32949 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

                                    7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is
                                    allowed. Let the applicant- Mukrim @ Mukarram, who is involved in
                                    aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
                                    bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
                                    concerned subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall
                                    not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
                                    trial court as required.

                                    8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
                                    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 16, 2026
                                    Shalini




Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
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.