Allahabad High Court

MOHD HAMID @ SADDAMversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail under the U.P. Gangsters Act.

Summary

The applicant, Mohd Hamid @ Saddam, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 2(b)(1) and 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He argued that the FIR was vague, did not disclose any act falling within the definition of "gang" or "gangster", and that only one case was shown against him in the gang chart, for which he had previously been released on bail. The State opposed the 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, without expressing an opinion on the merits, granted bail. The bail was conditioned on a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard conditions such as not tampering with evidence, not pressurising witnesses, and appearing before the trial court. The court ordered that any breach would permit the prosecution to move for bail cancellation.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR under the U.P. Gangsters Act is maintainable given the alleged vagueness of the allegations.
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 19(4)(b) of the U.P. Gangsters Act.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

bail
U.P. Gangsters Act
Section 19(4)(b)
FIR maintainability
witness tampering
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34617 of 2026

Mohd Hamid @ Saddam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Kumar Chaturvedi
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 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. 01 of 2026, under Sections 2(b)(1) and
3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986
(for short, the "Gangsters Act"), Police Station- Kaptanganj, District-
Azamgarh, 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 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
02.05.2025.
6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
BAIL No. 34617 of 2026
2

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- Mohd Hamid @ Saddam, 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.
September 29, 2026
Manish Kr

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…