Nanhe Lal Yadav vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29624 of 2025

Nanhe Lal Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 49

¶6

HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

¶7

This is the second bail application. The first bail application was not dismissed on merits. Sri Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi, learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted leave to take all the grounds on merits.

¶8

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2023 at Police StationSikariganj, District- Gorakhpur under Sections 3(1) of UP Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. The applicant is in jail since 01.01.2023.

¶9

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 05.11.2024.

¶10

The following arguments made by Sri Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Suchit Tandon, learned A.G.A. from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶11

The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial.

¶12

The applicant never influenced witnesses or tampered with the evidence.

¶13

The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the trial proceedings.

¶14

BAIL No. 29624 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

The applicant has been enlarged on bail in all six cases depicted in the gang chart. He is not a member of any criminal gang.

¶17

The status report sent by the learned trial court records that the prosecution proposes to examine 15 witnesses to bring home the charges. Till date 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined and the prosecution evidence is nearing conclusion. The stage will shortly be set for proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C./defence evidence.

¶18

There is no possibility of the applicant influencing the said material witnesses or tampering with the evidence.

¶19

The applicant needs time to gather resources to get legal advice, collect evidence and tender it before the trial court.

¶20

The investigations were vitiated by pro-prosecution bias inasmuch as the exculpatory evidences were not collected by the police during the course of the investigations in this case. The criminal case was commenced only to burnish the credentials of the police authorities.

¶21

The applicant is a poor person and has been abandoned by his friends and family alike. He does not have any effective pairokar to conduct his defence before the trial court. The applicant is a person of meagre means and needs to collect resources to engage a counsel of his choice.

¶22

Continued incarceration of the applicant will disable him from crafting an effective defence strategy and prevent him from gathering evidence in his support and tendering the same before the learned trial court to establish his innocence. Further detention of the applicant will be detrimental to his defence in the trial and inconsistent with the norms of fairness in criminal processual jurisprudence. In fact such detention of the applicant in these facts will be punitive in nature. [Ref: Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application

¶23

BAIL No. 29624 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

No. 2586 of 2023) Asha v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13193 of 2025 and Vikas Kanjad v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19170 of 2025)]

¶26

The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant has become a soft target and a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who nominated him in a number of false cases to burnish their professional credentials. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application.

¶27

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶28

In wake of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶29

It is clarified that the submissions regarding the defence are without prejudice to the accused and the defence proposed to be tendered on his behalf without being limited or influenced by this order.

¶30

Let the applicant- Nanhe Lal Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶31

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶32

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶33

The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due

¶34

BAIL No. 29624 of 2025

¶35

4

¶36

application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023) . The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.

¶37

It is further directed that in case the applicant does not cooperate in the trial or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record a finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to this Court.

¶38

(Ajay Bhanot,J.)

¶39

November 13, 2025 Dhananjai

¶40

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nanhe Lal Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanhe Lal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikas Kanjad vs State of U.P.

Shivam Pandey vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Devi Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Asad Hussain Khan and Another vs State of U.P. and 14 Others

Badri Prasad vs State of U.P. and 24 Others

Awadhesh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others