Rahul Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 691 of 2025

Applicant :- Rahul Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Tripathi,Sudha Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 151 of 2021, under Section 2/3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Ramganj, District Amethi.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that on the basis of three cases, the U.P. Gangster Act has been imposed over the applicant. He added that the nature of the offence is not such which could constitute the offence under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He also added that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he has cooperated with the investigation and chargesheet has already been filed. He next added that the applicant will always cooperate with the trial proceedings and will never abscond with the same. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant was involved in committed the offence and one case is shown against him in the gang chart and, as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶9

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that on the basis of three cases, the U.P. Gangster Act has been imposed over the applicant; the nature of the offence is not such which could constitute the offence under the Act; the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he has cooperated in the investigation and chargesheet has been

¶10

filed in the matter and he has undertaken that he will always remain present before the trial court as and when required, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail.

¶11

Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Rahul Yadav, shall be released forthwith, in the event of his arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶13

(ii) that 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;

¶14

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶15

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶16

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶17

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶18

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.

¶20

Steps be taken within a week.

¶21

If the steps are taken, the office shall proceed accordingly.

¶22

List/put up this matter in third week of August, 2025.

¶23

In the meantime, learned counsel for the State as well as opposite party no. 2 shall file their counter affidavits.

¶24

It is directed that the applicant shall remain present before the learned trial court on each and every date fixed. In case he does not appear before the learned trial court, the trial court shall inform this Court through Senior Registrar of this Court. It is further provided that the learned trial court is at liberty to issue process for appearance of the applicant, if he fails to appear before it.

¶25

Order Date :- 24.6.2025 kkv/

¶26

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Deshraj Yadav @ Deshraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shambhu Kumar Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin . Secy. Home Lko.

Sandeep Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Jagpal Singh (Warehouse in Charge/Centre in Charge) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Israr vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 5 Others

Rang Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another