Nyamat Ali vs. State Of U.P.
Held
The Court allowed the bail application without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The applicant, Nyamat Ali, was directed to be released on bail in the aforementioned case crime upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The court stipulated that the sureties' identity, status, and residence must be verified. The conditions for bail included not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, and appearing before the trial court as required. Any breach of these conditions would lead to the cancellation of bail. The court did not decide on the substantive merits of the case, focusing solely on the bail plea.
Facts
The applicant, Nyamat Ali, sought bail in Case Crime No. 464 of 2010 (GST No. 24/2011), under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The prosecution was based on two criminal cases listed in the gang chart, in which the applicant had already been granted bail. The applicant's counsel argued that he was falsely implicated due to police rivalry and was not a member of any gang. The applicant had been in jail since July 28, 2026. The State Law Officer opposed the bail application.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 464 of 2010 (GST No. 24/2011) under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, considering he has already been granted bail in the underlying criminal cases forming the basis of the gang chart. Petitioner's Argument: The applicant's counsel argued that the prosecution under the Gangsters Act was unsustainable as the applicant had already secured bail in the two criminal cases cited in the gang chart. He contended that the applicant was falsely implicated and not a member of any gang, with his criminal history being explained. The applicant had been incarcerated since July 28, 2026, and would not misuse bail liberty. Revenue's Argument: The learned State Law Officer opposed the prayer for bail.
Sections Cited
Section 3(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36227 of 2026 Court No. - 68 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
List has been revised.
Heard Sri Chandra Mani Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.464 of 2010 (GST No.24/2011), under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Kotwali Mahoba, District- Maoba, during the pendency of trial.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution under the Gangsters Act have been launched against the applicant on the basis of two criminal cases shown in the gang chart in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. The details of criminal cases have been mentioned in the affidavit accompanying the bail application. He has been falsely implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. He is not the member of any gang. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is l
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.