HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34660 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application, under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 472 of 2026 , under Section 3(1), 2(b)(i), 2(b)(xi) and 2(b)(xiv) of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Chiluatal, District- Gorakhpur, during the pendency of 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 28.06.2026. 6. Learned Brief Holder for the State 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ravi Chaudhari .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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- Ravi Chaudhari, 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 BAIL No. 34660 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad