VINOD KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 9403 of 2026

Vinod Kumar Singh
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)            :   Manoj Kumar Singh, P.K. Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)       :   G.A.

Court No. - 72
                 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and
perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case
Crime No.174 of 2026, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Gopiganj, District
Bhadohi, with a prayer to grant him anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is absolutely
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he has nothing
to do with the alleged offence in spite of that the police are trying to arrest
the applicant. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that one
case has been shown in the gang chart against the applicant and in the
aforesaid case, the applicant is on bail. Apart from one case shown in the
gang chart, the applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that
co-accused Lalsahab Harijan has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court
vide order dated 17.07.2026 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application
U/S 482 BNSS No. 6720 of 2026.

4. He further stated that in 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. Further, stated that in absence of allegation concerning an act
or omission on the part of an accused, covered by the definition of term
                                                       NABAIL No. 9403 of 2026
                                2


"gang" and "gangster" as provided under Section 2 of the Act, no FIR is
maintainable. In the instant case, the FIR is based upon the pending
criminal case(s) and not upon any new allegation(s) or discovery of
fact(s) having serious reflection on the society, for which purpose the Act
was enacted.

5. He also stated that the provisions of the Act could not be used as a
weapon to wreak vengeance or harass or intimidate citizens or to settle
scores on political or other fronts.

6. He stated that in this case, it appears that the District Administration in
order to show good work or to win laurels or seek appreciation from the
higher authorities of Government or ruling party has invoked the
provisions of the Act, which is unjustified.

7. He also stated 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 anticipatory bail. He also submitted that the applicant
while on anticipatory bail would not commit any crime/offence nor would
try to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner
whatsoever it may be.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant
undertakes to cooperate during investigation and trial and shall appear as
and when required by the Investigating Agency or the Court concerned. It
has also been stated that, in case the applicant is granted anticipatory
bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, shall cooperate with the
investigation, and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed
by the Court.

9. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail,
but has fairly conceded that in the case mentioned in the gang chart, the
applicant is on bail. He also could not dispute that co-accused Lalsahab
Harijan has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. However, he
further submitted that the applicant is member of a gang and habitual of
committing crime. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again
indulge in similar anti-social activities and will misuse the bail by
                                                             NABAIL No. 9403 of 2026
                                   3


extending threat and intimidation to the prosecution witnesses.

10. I have heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the
record.

11. Section 19(4) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 reads as follows:-

     "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused
     of an offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder
     shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless--

     (a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the
     application for such release, and

     (b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is
     satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
     guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while
     on bail."

12. In light of Section 19(4) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, I have considered the material evidence available
on record, the nature of offence which has been mentioned in the gang-
chart and the criminal background of the accused-applicant.

13. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while
considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to
consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of
his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence
including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as
leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be
generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the
offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case,
while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether
to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

14. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1
Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
                                                       NABAIL No. 9403 of 2026
                                4


personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The
occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial
investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is
a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely
because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that
arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of
the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made
routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of
a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the
accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout
cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the
officer to arrest the accused.

15. Considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail,
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation,
role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on merits, and the case of the applicant is
squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments, a case for anticipatory bail
is made out.

16. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with
following directions:-

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Vinod Kumar Singh, involved
in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the
conclusion of trial, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with
two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station
House Officer of the police station concerned;

(ii) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during
investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when
required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

(iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer; and
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 9403 of 2026
                                                                   5


                                    (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
                                    the Court.

                                    17. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/
                                    Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file
                                    appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the
                                    applicant, before the concerned court.


                                                                                      (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
                                    September 21, 2026
                                    Radhika




Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad