Allowed¶15

Subhash Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025BAIL/38812/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court bail order dated 26.11.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38812 of 2025 (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.); Subhash Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P.; Case Crime No. 99 of 2025, Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act 1986, P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehpur; Section 19(4) consideration; gang-chart cases explained; custody since 24.03.2025; reliance on Prabhakar Tewari 2020 (11) SCC 648; AGA did not oppose; bail allowed with conditions; no merits expressed.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Subhash Chandra Pandey in Case Crime No. 99 of 2025 (Sections 2/3, U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986, P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehpur) on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions (i)-(v); breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail. ¶15

Subhash Chandra Pandey vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Subhash Chandra Pandey should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 99 of 2025 under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Court's answer

Considering the totality of facts, the nature and evidence on record, and the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the court found it a fit case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 99 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (i)-(v) including non-tampering with evidence/witnesses and presence before the trial court on fixed dates.

¶16

Key takeaways

Breach of any of the bail conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶24
Anything said in the order is limited to the purpose of determination of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits; the trial court remains free to arrive at independent conclusions on the evidence.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Ss. 2/3 and 19(4) — applicant in Case Crime No. 99 of 2025, P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehpur, in jail since 24.03.2025 — counsel relied on Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P., 2020 (11) SCC 648 (pendency of criminal cases by itself no basis to refuse bail) — learned AGA did not oppose and pointed to no case beyond the gang-chart — court, considering totality of facts, nature and evidence on record and S. 19(4), and without expressing any opinion on merits, held it a fit case for bail and allowed the application — release on personal bond and two reliable sureties with conditions against tampering/inducement, pressure on prosecution witnesses, and presence before trial court on fixed dates; breach a ground for cancellation — observations confined to bail determination only.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38812 of 2025

¶3

Subhash Chandra Pandey

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Naveen Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 68

¶6

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Puneet Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-Respondent and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 99 of 2025, under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

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. Criminal history as mentioned in the gang-chart has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already been released on bail in all the cases mentioned in the gang chart.

¶10

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 24.03.2025, 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.

¶11

BAIL No. 38812 of 2025

¶12

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 .

¶16

Let the applicant, Subhash Chandra Pandey , 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-

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

BAIL No. 38812 of 2025

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

November 26, 2025

¶27

pks

¶28

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶29

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

Subhash Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chandra Pandey 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

Similar cases

Burhan vs State of U.P.

Amit vs State of U.P.

Sameer vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaya Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P.

Mahipal Alias Chauhanni vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Janus @ Khan vs State of U.P.