Allowed

Veerpal @ Nilu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2025BAIL/38634/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS in a Gangster Act case; the applicant was already on bail in one gang-chart case and not incarcerated in the other. The court declined to decide the maintainability question pending before a Full Bench, considered Section 19(4), and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties and conditions including non-tampering with evidence and presence at trial.

Veerpal @ Nilu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38634 of 2025

¶3

Veerpal @ Nilu

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Vijit Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 68

¶7

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant Veerpal @ Nilu, Shri Manish Goyal, learned AAG/Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶9

The instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 533 of 2025, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application of the applicant before the Court below has been rejected by the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Addl. Sessions Judge/FTC, Court No. 2, Kannauj vide order dated 16.10.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.7.2025.

¶10

Shri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant was granted bail in Case Crime No. 798 of 2024, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Kannaj, District Kannauj by this Court vide order dated 04.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42825 of 2024 (Veerpal @ Neelu Yadav Vs. State of U.P.). The charge sheet was immediately submitted in the said case on 13.07.2025. In the base case charge sheet was submitted on 11.07.2025. The FIR giving rise to the present case crime number was lodged on 13.07.2025 with mala fide intent only to keep the applicant behind bars. It

¶11

BAIL No. 38634 of 2025

¶12

¶13

is also argued that the gang chart was approved by the District Magistrate, District Kannauj and the Superintendent of Police on 13.07.2025 whereas the Nodal Officer approved the same on 12.07.2025. Only two cases have been shown in the gang chart against the applicant. In Case Crime No. 193 of 2025, under Sections 132, 221, 329, 351(2), 49, 119 of BNS, Police Station Tirwa, District Kannauj, the applicant has been released on bail and in Case Crime No. 361 of 2025 under Sections 351(3), 224, 132, 49, 232, 61(2), 308(7) of BNS, Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj after submission of charge sheet the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the case at the stage of cognizance. It is also submitted that the applicant has been acquitted/discharged in as many as 16 cases (detailed in Para 10 of the affidavit) and is on bail in as many as 10 case (detailed in Para 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in Case Crime No. 533 of 2025 the FIR has been lodged only under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, without describing the corresponding provisions of Section 2(b) (i) to (xxv) of the Act and the FIR fails to disclose any act of the violence, threat, show of violence, intimidation or conversion against the applicant.

¶14

Shri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that proceedings under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 alone would not be maintainable in view of the Division Bench decision rendered in the case of Asim @ Hassim Vs. State of U.P. & another, Criminal Misc. Writ petition No. 18729 of 2023. It is, accordingly, prayed that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Per contra, Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General/Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vikas Sahai opposing the bail plea submits that the applicant is a member of an organized gang led by Nawab Singh and his associates which gang is engaged in criminal conspiracy by threatening and intimidating witnesses, working as an organized syndicate with aim to disrupt public order through witness influence, creating fear and terror among the public, making witness reluctant to testify and thus covered under the provisions of the Gangster

¶16

BAIL No. 38634 of 2025

¶17

¶18

Act. There is no malice on the part of the State Government in lodging prosecution against the applicant by restoring to the provisions of U.P. Gangster Act. The investigating giving rise to the present case crime number was initiated upon written complaint filed by the victims. The instant FIR has no nexus with the bail applications pending before this Court at that point of time. The present proceedings were commenced only after collecting substantial evidence and identifying of Gang members, demonstrating their organized criminal pattern and confirming the threat to public order and witness integrity. The FIR clearly discloses the nature of the evidence and the reasons how Section 3 of the Gangster Act has been invoked. As regards, the Case Crime No. 361 of 2025, it is submitted that against the order dated 20.9.2025, refusing to take cognizance the same has been stayed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed in Crl. Revision No. 6851 of 2025, recording detail findings on the conduct of the applicant and also taking judicial note of the fact that the applicant threatened the victim Dr. Swastika Shalini by telling her that if he is released on bail, three persons would be murdered. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Revision No. 6851 of 2025 had issued notices to the applicant requiring his presence in the said proceeding and file counter affidavit. However, the applicant never entered his appearance despite service. The applicant has a criminal history of 27 cases and is involved in criminal activities since the year 1999. It is accordingly prayed that the prosecution of the applicant in the present case is warranted and no indulgence is required from this Hon'ble Court. The bail application is thus liable to be dismissed.

¶19

On the issue regarding the submission of the applicant that the present proceedings are not maintainable under the U.P. Gangster Act in terms of law laid down in the case of Asim @ Hassim (supra), Shri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel/Additional Advocate General for the State submits that the said decision has been distinguished in Mohd. Sarfaraz versus State of U.P. (Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 1708 of 2024) and in the case of Dharmendra versus State of U.P. (Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 1049 of 2024) . A Full Bench has been constituted to answer the Reference and the matter is sub-judice.

¶20

BAIL No. 38634 of 2025

¶21

¶22

It is accordingly submitted that the ratio laid down in Asim @ Hassim (Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 18729 of 2023) cannot be pressed to hold that the proceedings initiated against the applicant are not maintainable.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

¶24

So far as the question regarding the maintainability of the proceedings under Section 3 (i) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 alone without describing the corresponding provisions of Section 2 (b) (i) to (xxv) of the Act is concerned, the Court is not inclined to go into the said question for the consideration of the present bail, inasmuch as the issue is still sub-judice having been referred to a Full Bench. So far as the present proceedings under the Gangster Act is concerned, only two cases have been shown against the applicant i.e. Case Crime No. 193 of 2025 and Case Crime No. 361 of 2025.

¶25

The applicant admittedly is on bail in Case Crime No. 193 of 2025 and in Case Crime No. 361 of 2025, the applicant does not appear to be incarcerated in jail inasmuch as, the case was dismissed at the stage of taking cognizance which order was subsequently stayed only to the extent of the direction regarding legal training of the concerned police officials and Incharge Director (Prosecution).

¶26

The applicant has already been acquitted/discharged in as many as 16 cases and is on bail in as many as 10 cases, which have duly been explained in Para 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and which were duly considered by this Court while granting bail to the applicant vide order dated 4.7.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 4285 of 2024 (Veerpal @ Nilu versus State of U.P.).

¶27

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, nature and the evidence reflected from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed .

¶28

Let applicant, Veerpal @ Nilu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of

¶29

BAIL No. 38634 of 2025

¶30

¶31

the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶32

(i) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶33

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶34

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

¶35

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶36

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶37

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶38

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶39

December 16, 2025

¶40

pks

¶41

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶42

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

Veerpal @ Nilu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerpal @ Nilu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Chaudhary @ Harsh Aditya vs State of U.P.

Kafeel Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arpit vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nawab Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Nagar Alias Ravindra Singh Alias Ravi Kana vs State of U.P.

Shakir vs State of U.P.