Allowed¶14

Chintu Mathur v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2026BAIL/8352/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 - U.P. Gangsters Act Sections 2/3 - Chintu Mathur - Case Crime No. 01 of 2026, P.S. Fariha, District Firozabad - solitary criminal history explained - custody since 23.08.2025 - Section 19(4) Gangsters Act considered - personal bond with two reliable sureties - conditions incl. presence under Section 351 BNSS - Ashutosh Srivastava, J. - Allahabad High Court - March 19, 2026 - Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8352 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Chintu Mathur released on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2026 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (i)-(v); breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail. ¶14

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Chintu Mathur, arraigned in Case Crime No. 01 of 2026 under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Fariha, District Firozabad, and in custody since 23.08.2025, should be released on bail during pendency of trial.

¶10

Court's answer

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

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Applicant Chintu Mathur to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2026 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶17

Key takeaways

Bail granted subject to conditions: no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; personal presence before the trial court at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS; undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; presence on each date personally or through counsel. Breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶23
Anything said in the order is limited to the determination of the bail application and is not an expression on the merits; the trial court is absolutely free to arrive at its own independent conclusions on the evidence.obiter¶24

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 Chintu Mathur seeking release in Case Crime No. 01 of 2026 under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Fariha, District Firozabad. Counsel for the applicant submitted that he was innocent and falsely implicated, that his solitary criminal case stood sufficiently explained, that he was not a member, leader or organiser of a gang and had not abetted or assisted gang activities within clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, that there was no possibility of his fleeing from the judicial process or tampering with witnesses, and that he was in custody since 23.08.2025 with no likelihood of early conclusion of trial; the learned AGA opposed but pointed to no other case against the applicant. Considering the totality of facts, the evidence on record and Section 19(4) of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court granted bail on a personal bond with two reliable sureties, imposed conditions including personal presence at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, and clarified that its observations were confined to the bail determination and would not affect the trial.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8352 of 2026

¶3

Chintu Mathur

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Brajesh Kumar Singh, Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 68

¶8

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajai Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶10

The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant Chintu Mathur , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2026, under Section 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Fariha, District Firozabad, during pendency of the trial.

¶11

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. Solitary Case of criminal history have sufficiently been explained.

¶12

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 23.08.2025, 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 .

¶15

BAIL No. 8352 of 2026

¶16

¶17

Let applicant, Chintu Mathur 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

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

¶24

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.

¶25

March 19, 2026 Deepak/

¶26

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chintu Mathur v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintu Mathur 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sujeet Yadav @ Golu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Lalu @ Ajay @ Pradeep @ Harvesh Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Akib Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Ahirwar vs State of U.P.

Raja vs State of U.P.

Ashu @ Ashu Mohammad vs State of U.P.