JUDGMENT D.S. Bajpai, J. - In this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus which has been admitted by an order of a Division Bench dated 8th September, 1986, the petitioners Brij Bhushan Singh, Devendra Pratap Singh and Shanker Das have been arrested and charged under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners have assailed the various provisions of the said Act and have also challenged their detention and confinement on various provisions of law as also in violation of the guarantee contained in Article 22 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.S. Misra as also the learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Bireshwar Nath and have also gone through the affidavits exchanged between the parties and perused the relevant petitions of the case diary produced before me by the learned Additional Government Advocate. The learned counsel have brought to my notice the provisions of law, in particular the provisions of Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, the definition of a 'gang' as provided in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act besides various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Provisions of Section 15 of the Terrorists Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act (Act 61 of 1984). The learned Addl. Government Advocate has also relied on a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Inspector, Dilbagh Singh and others v. State of U.P., reported in 1986 Crl. Law Journal, page 125. The learned counsel for the petitioners besides relying on various decisions has placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 11th April, 1986 in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1210 of 1986 (Kamlesh Pratap Singh v. Superintendent District Jail, Lucknow and others) to which was also a party in which the petitioner was charged under Sections 147, 148, 149,452, 323, 504, 506, 384, 511, I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Act and bail was granted to the petitioner after admission of the writ petition for hearing and exchange of affidavits between the parties. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties were more or less identical in the said case and I have been addressed on the same points at a considerable length. Another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 3325 of 1986 (Kunwar Udai Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) dated May 20, 1986, to which was also a party, has been cited in which bail was granted to the petitioners even though an effort had been made to indicate the criminal history in earlier cases. 3. It may be pointed out at the very outset that offence under Section 364, I.P.C. has to be proved on the basis of the ingredients of the said section and a perusal of the list of offences said to have been committed by the respective petitioners is not prima facie convincing inasmuch as it has been conceded that in none of the cases the petitioners have been convicted and in most of the cases either the petitioners have been discharged or final report has been submitted against them. 4. I, accordingly, direct that the petitioners Brij Bhushan Singh, Devendra Pratap Singh and Shanker Das shall be admitted to bail on their furnishing two sureties and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Faizabad.