Golu Yadav @ Sudeep Vs State of U.P.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 320 of 2024, under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi, during pendency of the trial before the court below. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this court vide order dated 02.05.2025 and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 29.10.2024.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the 2nd bail application has reiterated the submissions and arounds pressed in the first bail application. It has further been argued that the applicant is not a previous convict. The criminal antecedents of 50 cases shown against the applicant are relating to petty offenses of theft/robbery/dacoity, in which the applicant has been falsely implicated. Some of the cases are stated to be pending since the year 2014 and in none of the cases the applicant has been convicted which shows the falsity of the accusations against the applicant. In all the cases bail has been granted by courts of law. The implication of the applicant in the present case under the Gangster Act on the basis of his previous criminal history is bad in law and the gang chart itself is not in accordance with the provisions of the Gangster Act or the Rules framed thereunder and as such no prosecution can be done on the said basis. The charge sheet against the

¶11

BAIL No. 23370 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

applicant has been filed as far back as on 30.05.2025. The charges against the applicant has yet not been framed. There are 21 witnesses against the applicant and none have been examined so far. There is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required as the investigation of the applicant is no longer required as the investigation has concluded. The applicant is not a flight risk and undertakes to cooperate in the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence bail has been prayed for.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a decision passed in the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶15

Per contra learned A.G.A. could not oppose the prayer for bail of the applicant and also could not pointed out any other case against the applicant except the case shown in the gang-chart made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence 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 .

¶17

Let the applicant, Golu Yadav @ Sudeep , 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-

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

(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)

¶21

BAIL No. 23370 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

recording of statement.

¶24

(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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

October 8, 2025

¶29

pks

¶30

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Golu Yadav @ Sudeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golu Yadav @ Sudeep 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases