Dharmendra Yadav vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12152

Court No. - 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 368 of 2025

Applicant :- Dharmendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arimardan Yadav, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.206 of 2024, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Mant, District Mathura.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the gang chart, one case has been shown against the applicant. In that case the applicant has been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.33303 of 2024 after finding that there is prima facie violation of Section 52A(2) of NDPS Act as samples have not been drawn in front of the Magistrate. The bail order is on record as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Therefore, this being the base case on the basis of which the applicant has been booked under the Gangsters Act, the applicant may not be held guilty as primary evidence has not been collected by the prosecution case. Nothing was recovered from his possession nor from his residential premises. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant in future will not indulge into such offence. The applicant is in jail since 5.9.2024. Co-accused, Virendra Gurjar, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36565 of 2024.

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Perusal of the record shows that in the solitary case shown in the gang chart the applicant has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court after prima facie finding non-compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, thus, the applicant may not be convicted as there is lack of primary evidence and the twin conditions referred to in Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, stand satisfied as also considering the period of incarceration gone into by the applicant, it will be appropriate to grant bail to the applicant in this case also.

¶13

Accordingly, the application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Dharmendra Yadav , involved in the aforesaid case, 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Anjali

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra 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

Soni vs State of Up

Toni Singh @ Rajendra Singh vs State of U.P.

Gulab Kali vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Salman vs State of U.P.

Praveen Kumar vs State of U.P.

Satyam Pandey vs State of U.P.