Manju And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
- Neutral2026:AHC-LKO:32506
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an accused is charged under the U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, bail may be granted on the basis of the period already spent in custody, the nature of the allegations, the applicant's involvement in cases shown in the gang chart, and arguments of counsel, without prejudging the merits of the case, where the court finds it a fit case for bail in the circumstances.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1.Heard learned counsel for the applicants who has filed supplementary affidavit which is taken on record, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
2.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the gang chart, two cases have been shown against the applicants. In both the cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail. The bail orders are annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the bail application as Annexures 3 and 4. There is no other case pending against the applicant. The applicants are in jail since 30.3.2026.
It is also submitted that the applicants are ready to furnish an undertaking in terms of requirement of Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
3.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, the applicant has been granted bail in the case(s) shown in the gang chart as also in other cases, noted above, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
5.Let the applicants Manju and Jitendra Bawariya involved in Case Crime No.65 of 2026 under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Raebareli be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The applicants shall also file an undertaking in terms of requirement of Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that he will not indulge in any case or misuse the liberty of bail.
(v) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law.
6.The bail application is allowed accordingly.
(Rajeev Bharti,J.)
May 6, 2026
kkb/
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free