Rahul Yadav vs State of U.P.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 131 of 2025, under Sections 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Syed Raza, District Chandauli, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter alongwith others including co-accused Ramesh Patel @ Bablu Patel and as per allegation applicant and other accused including co-accused Ramesh Patel indulged in smuggling of cow and they used to transfer the illegal gratification in the account of police personnel but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.

¶14

He further submitted that co-accused Ramesh Patel has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 40470 of 2025 and case of applicant is at par with him.

¶15

He further submitted that however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 8 other cases but entire criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in para 18 of the affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application and in all the cases, applicant is on bail.

¶16

He further submitted that law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, bail application should not be rejected.

¶17

He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 5.7.2025 i.e. for last more than four and half months.

¶18

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the

¶19

BAIL No. 39176 of 2025

¶20

2

¶21

arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶23

However, as per allegation applicant alongwith others including co-accused Ramesh Patel indulged in smuggling of cow and he alongwith others including co accused Ramesh Patel used to transfer illegal money in the accounts of police personnel but it reflects co accused Ramesh Patel has been released on bail and case of applicant is at par with him.

¶24

Further, record also suggests that applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation he has been made accused.

¶25

Further, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 8 other cases but his entire criminal antecendents have been explained in the instant bail application and it reflects in all the cases he is on bail.

¶26

This Court finds merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, bail application should not be withheld.

¶27

Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 5.7.2025 i.e. for last more than four and half months.

¶28

Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

¶29

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶30

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶31

Let the applicant- Rahul Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶33

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶34

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶35

BAIL No. 39176 of 2025

¶36

3

¶37

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶38

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶39

November 21, 2025 Ankita

¶40

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶41

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kedar Prasad Gupta Alias Kedar Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Rahul vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.

Mohd Saeed @ Sajju vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Garg Alias Sundari vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Skand Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another