Allowed¶12

Durgesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 May 2025BAIL/14671/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 68, Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) allows Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14671 of 2025 filed under S. 483 B.N.S.S. by Durgesh Yadav seeking bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025 under S. 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986, PS Farah, District Mathura. Gang-chart showed two cases, in both of which the applicant was on bail; A.G.A. (Shri Arimardan yadav) pointed out no additional cases; applicant in jail since 02.01.2025. Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions; order dated 22.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:86666.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Durgesh Yadav in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025 (Ss. 2/3, UP Gangsters Act, PS Farah, Mathura) on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to the conditions in paragraphs 14 to 18 of the order.

Durgesh Yadav vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Durgesh Yadav should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025 under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Court's answer

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from the record, and taking into consideration Section 19(4) of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the court found it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions including non-inducement/non-tampering with witnesses and evidence, presence before the trial court on fixed dates, and an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶13

Key takeaways

Anything said in the order is limited to the purpose of determining the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits; the trial court remains free to arrive at its own independent conclusions on the evidence.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Ss. 2/3 — application under S. 483 B.N.S.S. — gang-chart (Annexure No. 2) disclosed two criminal cases against the applicant, in both of which he was already on bail — learned A.G.A. pointed out no other case against the applicant — applicant in custody since 02.01.2025 — Held, considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence on record and the provision of S. 19(4) of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on merits, a fit case for bail; applicant released on personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount with conditions regarding non-tampering, presence before the trial court and no adjournments; breach of conditions to be ground for cancellation of bail; observations confined to the bail determination only. (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Ashutosh Srivastava, J.; Order dated 22.5.2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86666

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14671 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Durgesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Kamlesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Arimardan yadav, learned A.G.A. and perused the record of the case.

¶7

The present bail application under 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of applicant Durgesh Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Farah, District-Mathura, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. In gang-chart annexed as Annexure No. 2, two criminal cases has been mentioned in both of which the applicant is on bail.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant is not a member or leader or organizer of a gang and he has not abetted or assisted in the activities of a gang as enumerated in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act. Applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid case. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 02.01.2025, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but has not pointed out any other case against the applicant except the cases shown by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence

¶12

reflected from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let applicant, Durgesh Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶14

(i) 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.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement.

¶17

(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 the trial court.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Deepak/

¶22

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Durgesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

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

Ranjan Sahani and Another vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Prasad Alias Joginder vs State of U.P.

Rahul Gupta Alias Rahul Kumar vs State of U.P.

Akaram vs State of U.P.

Ibran Alias Imran Alias Banta vs State of U.P.

Rinku Yadav vs State of U.P.