Allahabad High Court

KRISHNA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that, given the lack of specific allegations under the Gangsters Act, the applicant’s extended pre‑trial custody, and assurances of non‑interference, bail must be granted.

Summary

The applicant, Krishna Kumar, sought bail under Section 483 of the CrPC for a case filed under Sections 2 and 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He argued that the FIR was vague, did not satisfy the definition of a "gang" or "gangster", and that he had already been in custody for more than six years without a trial. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. The court noted Section 19(4)(b) of the Gangsters Act, the lack of specific allegations, and the applicant’s long pre‑trial detention, and concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe he would not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted for an offence under the U.P. Gangsters Act when the FIR is alleged to be vague and does not meet the statutory definition of a gang.
Whether the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention of over six years warrants bail.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — s. 19(4)(b), 2, 3

Subjects

bail
pre‑trial detention
Gangsters Act
section 2 definition
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
Uttar Pradesh

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34654 of 2026

Krishna Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Priti Choudhary
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 under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed
with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 222 of
2020, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short, the "Gangsters Act"), Police Station
Chhapar, District Muzaffarnagar 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 was convicted by the trial court. Thereafter, the applicant preferred
Criminal Appeal No. 11560 of 2025 before this Court, and this Court, vide
order dated 09.09.2026, granted bail to the applicant and also suspended the
sentence awarded, during the pendency of the appeal.

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,
BAIL No. 34654 of 2026
2

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
27.08.2020.

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. Moreover, the applicant has
remained in custody for more than six years, 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- Krishna Kumar, 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
Abhishek
(Vivek Varma, J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…