Dileep Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the gang chart, one case has been shown against the applicant. In that solitary case, the applicant has been enlarged on bail. The bail order is on record (Annexure-3). Apart from the said case, there is no other case pending against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 6.10.2025.

¶13

The co-accused Mulayam Yadav has been granted bail vide order passed in Bail No.10380 of 2025.

¶14

It is also submitted that the applicant is ready to furnish an undertaking in terms of requirement of Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

¶15

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also

¶18

BAIL No. 11353 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

considering the nature of allegations, the applicant has been enlarged on bail in the case shown in the gang chart, bail order of the co-accused Mulayam Yadav, 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.

¶21

5. Let the applicant Dileep Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.287 of 2025 under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Jahangirabad, district Barabanki be released on bail on his 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:-

¶22

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶23

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶26

(v) The applicant 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.

¶27

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

BAIL No. 11353 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

(vii) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶31

6. The bail application is allowed accordingly, on parity ground.

¶32

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶33

November 19, 2025

¶34

kkb/

¶35

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

Dileep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Manju Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Tausheef Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Vipin Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Nadeem Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Himanchal Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Girija Shankar Chaubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.