Allahabad High Court
ROHIN TYAGIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is rejected as the applicant does not fulfill the requirements of Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster Act.
Summary
The applicant, Rohin Tyagi, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, alleging innocence and lack of cogent evidence. He argued that he had been detained since 20 August 2026 and was willing to cooperate with the trial, and that a related pending case under IPC Sections 504 and 506 did not yet have a charge‑sheet. The State opposed, contending that the applicant’s criminal history was not explained and that he had failed to produce the order from the related case. The court examined the bail criteria under Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster Act and found that the applicant had not satisfied these parameters, particularly the omission of the required order. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with the court directing the trial court to expedite the pending trial but stating that its observations were limited to the bail matter.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant satisfies the conditions for bail under Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
- Whether the failure to produce the order of the related IPC case bars the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 504, 506
- U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — s. 19(4), 2, 3
Subjects
- bail
- U.P. Gangster Act
- Section 19(4)
- criminal history
- false implication
- trial pending
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32975 of 2026
Rohin Tyagi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Tiwari, Rajat Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
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 Ankit Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.K.
Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 210 of 2026, under Sections
2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986,
Police Station Saroorpur, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
There is no cogent evidence against the applicant. He is not named in the
Case Crime No. 184 of 2024 u/s 504, 506 IPC. The said case is
punishable with imprisonment below seven years, and the charge sheet
has not yet been submitted, as such, he is entitled for bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant
is languishing in jail since 20.8.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with
trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application
on the ground that the criminal history of the applicant has not been
properly explained, as he has not appended the order thereof.
BAIL No. 32975 of 2026
2
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the fact that the applicant had not appended the order of the
case crime number 184 of 2024, the parameters of Section 19(4) of U.P.
Gangsters Act, do not stand fulfilled, as such, I do not find it a fit case for
grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of
merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the
principle, if there is no legal impediment.
9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial.
10. The Registrar Compliance is directed to transmit a copy of this order
to the trial court concerned for necessary compliance.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 16, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…