Allowed¶17

Firoj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2026BAIL/3185/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed - S.483 BNSS - U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, S.2/3 and S.19(4) - Case Crime No. 341 of 2025, P.S. Daurala, District Meerut - applicant Firoj - 26 cases of criminal history explained - pendency of cases no ground to refuse bail (Prabhakar Tewari, 2020 (11) SCC 648; Abhimanue, 2025 INSC 1136) - custody since 10.12.2025 - personal bond and two sureties - conditions incl. presence under S.351 BNSS - no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Firoj on bail in Case Crime No. 341 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions (i)-(v); breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail. ¶17

Firoj Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Firoj, accused in Case Crime No. 341 of 2025 under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is entitled to release on bail under Section 483 BNSS during pendency of trial, having regard to his criminal history and Section 19(4) of the Act.

¶8

Court's answer

Considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence on record, and taking into account Section 19(4) of the Gangsters Act, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court found it a fit case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Applicant Firoj to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 341 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions (i)-(v) including non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of prosecution witnesses, personal presence at key trial stages including statement recording under Section 351 BNSS, and an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; breach to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

Key takeaways

Anything said in the order is limited to the bail determination and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits; the trial court remains free to arrive at independent conclusions on the evidence.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) allowed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by Firoj, accused in Case Crime No. 341 of 2025 under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Daurala, District Meerut, where he was in custody since 10.12.2025. Counsel relied on Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. (2020 (11) SCC 648) and Abhimanue etc. versus State of Kerala (2025 INSC 1136) to urge that pendency of criminal cases alone cannot justify refusal of bail, and submitted that 26 cases of criminal history stood explained while the AGA pointed to no other case. Taking into account the totality of facts, the evidence on record and Section 19(4) of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court found it a fit case for bail and released the applicant on a personal bond with two reliable sureties, imposing conditions against tampering and intimidation of witnesses and requiring presence at trial stages, including recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, with breach liable to cancellation of bail.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3185 of 2026

¶3

Firoj

¶4

	Versus		.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anand Pandey	Ji Mishra,	Kaushal Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 68

¶6

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Kaushal Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Yagyavalk Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant Firoj, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 341 of 2025, under Section 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Daurala, District Meerut, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. 26 cases of criminal history have sufficiently been explained.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a decisions of Apex Court passed in the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 , and Abhimanue etc. versus State of Kerala, reported in 2025 INSC 1136 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant is not a member or leader or organizer of a gang and he has not abetted or assisted in the activities of a

¶12

BAIL No. 3185 of 2026

¶13

¶14

gang as enumerated in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act. Applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid case. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 10.12.2025 undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶15

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but has not pointed out any other case against the applicant except the cases shown by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

Upon considering the totality of facts, 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 .

¶17

Let applicant, Firoj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

BAIL No. 3185 of 2026

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶28

February 27, 2026 Ravi Prakash

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Firoj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aman Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Raliya Vs State of U.P.

Ajay vs State of Up Others

Aman Agarwal vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Dua Vs State of U.P.