Rajeev Maheshwari vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40479 of 2025

Rajeev Maheshwari

	Versus	...	..Applicant(s)
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Janardan Yadav,	Vivek	Kumar Pal
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 Arvind Kumar, 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. 173 of 2024, under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Sector 20 Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, 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 21.08.2025, 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. 40479 of 2025

¶12

2

¶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, Rajeev Maheshwari, 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. 40479 of 2025

¶23

3

¶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

December 10, 2025

¶27

pks

¶28

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶29

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

Rajeev Maheshwari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Maheshwari 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

Mohit Chaudhary Alias Harsh Aditya vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sunita vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Anas Alias Bhura vs State of U.P.

Yasin vs State of U.P.

Vatsal Mittal vs State of U.P.