HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9787 of 2026 Court No. - 71 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.188 of 2025, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Bhoganipur, District Kanpur Dehat, 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 which the police are trying to arrest him. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that only one case has been shown in the gang chart against the applicant, and in that case, the applicant is on anticipatory bail. Apart from the base case, the applicant was earlier implicated in two cases. Out of the said two cases, he has been acquitted in one case, and in another case, no charge-sheet was submitted against him. It is further contended that the arrest of the applicant was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.07.2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14069 of 2025. The charge-sheet has been submitted in this case on 16.05.2026, and cognizance of the offence has been taken on 20.05.2026. It is next submitted that since the applicant was not arrested during the course of the investigation and the charge-sheet has been submitted in this case, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Singh, Rajiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Surendra Singh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 "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 lastly contended that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during trial and shall appear as and when required by 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 trial, 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 anticipatory bail. However, he further submitted that the NABAIL No. 9787 of 2026 2 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 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 Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of NABAIL No. 9787 of 2026 3 arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution. 12. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non- bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this." 14. 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. 15. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed with following directions:- (i) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Surendra Singh Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial, before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned; (ii) The applicant shall co-operate during trial and shall report to the court NABAIL No. 9787 of 2026 4 concerned as and when required for the purpose of fair trial. (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 from disclosing such facts to the Court; and (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. 16. 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. October 6, 2026 Radhika NABAIL No. 9787 of 2026 5 (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad