Rahul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2026BAIL/4958/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rahul v. State of U.P., High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4958 of 2026, decided March 18, 2026, Ashutosh Srivastava, J. — bail allowed under Section 483 BNSS 2023 in a case under Section 2/3, U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Case Crime No. 191 of 2025, P.S. Linepar, District Firozabad); applicant in jail since 17.10.2025; release on personal bond and two sureties with conditions including presence under Section 351 B.N.S.S.; order expressly limited to bail determination.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Rahul to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 191 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions (i)-(v); breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail. ¶¶15

Rahul vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Rahul, arraigned in Case Crime No. 191 of 2025 under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Linepar, District Firozabad, should be released on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶¶8

Court's answer

Considering the totality of facts, the nature and evidence reflected from the record, and the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the court found it a fit case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Rahul was directed to be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence and witnesses, presence before the trial court on dates fixed (including for framing of charge and statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S.), and no adjournment-seeking on evidence dates; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

Anything said in the order is limited to the determination of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits; the trial court is absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the evidence.obiter¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — application under Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by an accused in Case Crime No. 191 of 2025 under Section 2/3, Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Linepar, District Firozabad — applicant in custody since 17.10.2025 — 07 cases of criminal history stated to have been sufficiently explained and no other case pointed out by the State — considering the totality of facts, the evidence on record and Section 19(4) of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on merits, bail granted on personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to conditions — observations confined to the bail determination and not an expression on the merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4958 of 2026

¶3

Rahul

¶4

	Versus	...	..Applicant(s)
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Pradeep Kumar	Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 68

¶6

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Yagyavalk Pandey, learned AGA for the Staterespondents 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 Rahul, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 191 of 2025, under Section 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Linepar, District Firozabad, 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. 07 cases of criminal history have sufficiently been explained.

¶10

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 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 17.10.2025 undertakes that he will not misuse the

¶11

BAIL No. 4958 of 2026

¶12

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 .

¶16

Let applicant, Rahul 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-

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

BAIL No. 4958 of 2026

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶27

March 18, 2026 Ravi Prakash

¶28

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

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tushar Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh vs State of U.P.

Manjeet Singh vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Gupta @ Bechu Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Saloni Yadav Vs State of U.P.