Dipesh Yadav Alias Deepu Yadav vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40399 of 2025

¶2

Dipesh Yadav Alias Deepu Yadav

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ram Kirshna Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Dipesh Yadav Alias Deepu Yadav seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.348 of 2025, under Sections 310(2), 352, 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Bairiya, District Ballia.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 30.9.2025. It is submitted that eight accused persons alongwith some unknown persons are named in the FIR, whereas applicant is not named in the FIR. It is further submitted that as per FIR huge quantity of wine of different brand Royal Stage, Wisky etc. amounting Rs.5,23,482/- was said to be looted by the named accused persons. It is argued that name of applicant was surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons but neither any recovery of looted wine has been shown from the possession of applicant nor any specific or separate role has been assigned to the applicant in the FIR. It is further argued that applicant is a student, who is preparing for various competitive exams and he has criminal history of three cases which have been explained in para 21 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is lastly submitted that co-accused Manish Verma has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.36630 of 2025 and since charge-sheet

¶10

BAIL No. 40399 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

has already been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail. Learned AGA admits the fact that no recovery has been shown from the possession of applicant in this case.

¶14

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; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677 , dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶18

(iv) 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 of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶19

BAIL No. 40399 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly, in accordance with law.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

November 17, 2025 RA

¶25

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶26

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

Dipesh Yadav Alias Deepu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipesh Yadav Alias Deepu 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

Similar cases

Harsh vs State of U.P.

Chandan Nishad vs State of U.P.

Nausher vs State of U.P.

Chandan Kumar vs State of U.P.

Taqui Mohammad vs State of U.P.

Manish vs State of U.P.