Allahabad High Court
NAUSHADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The bail application is allowed, and the accused is entitled to release on bail.
Summary
Naushad, the accused, was detained on 22 May 2026 under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 in a cyber‑crime case pending trial. He filed a bail application seeking enlargement of bail, claiming false implication and noting that he is cooperating with the ongoing investigation despite having a prior criminal case for which he is also on bail. The State opposed the bail. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shiv Pratap Singh alias Chinu v. State of U.P. (2026 SCC Online SC 1677), which held that the Gangsters Act is "still born" and cannot sustain proceedings, rendering Naushad’s detention without legal basis. Applying this precedent and other recent Supreme Court bail guidelines, the Court allowed the bail application without addressing the merits of the underlying case. Naushad was ordered to be released on personal bond and two sureties, and to cooperate with the judicial process.
Issues considered
- Whether the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 can be invoked to justify continued detention of the accused.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s declaration that the Act is "still born" mandates the grant of bail to the accused.
- Whether the applicant’s criminal history and cooperation with investigation affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- U.P. Gangsters Act
- false implication
- pre‑trial detention
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal history
- cyber crime
- anti‑social activities
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35043 of 2026
Naushad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aushim Luthra, Harishchandra Yadav,
Utkarshni Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Harishchandra Yadav, learned counsel for accused applicant
and learned A.G.A. for State.
1A. Learned counsel for the applicant hands up the supplementary
affidavit explaining the criminal history, the same is taken on record.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Naushad to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 0047 of 2026, under
Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986, P.S.- Cyber Crime, District- Meerut, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the accused
applicant has been falsely implicated by the police under the provision of
Gangsters Act on the basis of one base case, in which applicant is on bail.
Apart from it, accused applicant has criminal history of one case, wherein he
is on bail. The investigation is continuing and the accused/applicant is
cooperating with the investigation. The accused applicant is languishing in
jail since 22.05.2026. He seeks enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State opposed the bail application.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Pratap Singh Alias
BAIL No. 35043 of 2026
2
Chinu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1677 has
considered the proceedings initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 and found
that the Act is still born and the proceedings initiated under it can not
survive. Hence, if the proceedings under the Act can not survive in view of
the dictum of Hon'ble The Supreme Court dealt herein above, the
incarceration of accused/applicant under the provision of the Act has no
legal basis.
7. Considered that the criminal history is explained and in the light of
aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the accused/applicant is
entitled to be released on bail.
8. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.
9. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the Supreme
Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2024)
10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re [(2024)10SCC
685].
10. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
October 1, 2026
Abhishek Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…