Laakhan Singh Yadav vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41826 of 2025

Laakhan Singh Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.			.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Pankaj Singh	Kumar Tiwari,	Vijay	Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶5

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed, today in Court, on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Laakhan Singh Yadav seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.548 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any fraud with the informant or any other person as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 18.9.2025. It is submitted that eleven accused persons including the applicant are named in the FIR. It is further submitted that as per the unregistered agreement to sell, an agreement was executed between the parties on 1.5.2017, wherein Rs.20,00,000/- was given to the first party in cash by the second party, whereas the FIR was lodged on 23.8.2023 in respect of the above agreement at a very belated stage for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution. It is argued that neither the signatures present on the unregistered agreement to sell is of the applicant nor he was the party to it. It is further argued that applicant is neither the beneficiary in the present case nor any reliable material is available on record to show that any amount was received by applicant in

¶10

BAIL No. 41826 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

this case. It is next argued that co-accused Satendra Singh Yadav, Mahipal Singh Yadav, Abrar, Abrar, Saleem having similar role have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.2.2025, 30.5.2024, 13.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.6448 of 2025, 21199 of 2024, 38460 of 2025 respectively and parity is sought in the matter. It is lastly submitted that applicant has criminal history of five cases which have been explained in para 18 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application as well as in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant and since charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case on 17.1.2025, 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 further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

¶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

¶17

BAIL No. 41826 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

present in Court.

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(v) In case the applicant misuses 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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

December 16, 2025 RA

¶26

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶27

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

Laakhan Singh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laakhan Singh 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

Mukesh Agrahari vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Yashwant vs State of U.P.

Hari Babu @ Harish Baboo vs State of U.P.

Jatin Savita vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Dutt Sharma vs State of U.P.