Yakoob Vs State of U.P.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Yakoob seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.334 of 2024, under Sections 109(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 125, 221, 132, 121(1), 121(2), 223B B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Sambhal.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Applicant is languishing in jail since 24.11.2024. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is submitted that FIR has been registered as 700-800 unknown accused persons. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation the charge-sheet has been submitted against 37 of the accused persons. It is argued that no specific role and involvement of the accused applicant has been assigned in the FIR or in the statement of the reliable eyewitnesses and most of the accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. It is argued that the co-accused Shuaib has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.6.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17652 of 2025. It is further argued that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of accused applicant fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶11

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that accused applicant has committed a serious offence in

¶12

BAIL No. 29707 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

connivance with other co-accused persons in furtherance of common object to all intervening the public servants to perform their legal duty. He further submits that one of the public servant has sustained injury which is not on vital part and is simple in nature. He further submits that 3-4 more cases have been registered against the accused applicant on the very same day and which are related to the same incident.

¶15

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC) LawSuit 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶17

(ii) 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.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 BNS.

¶19

(iv) 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./84 of BNSS 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 IPC/209 of BNS.

¶20

BAIL No. 29707 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

(v) 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 under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

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

¶24

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

October 6, 2025 RA

¶26

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yakoob v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yakoob 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