Abhay Yadav vs State of U.P.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 300 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 61(2), 131, 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the role of firing has been assigned to the applicant and other named accused. In the alleged incident no person received any firearm injury. No medical report of injured Neha is available in the case diary. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Karan Saroj has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36371 of 2025, Karan Saroj v. State of U.P. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-6 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 04.09.2025. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶11

Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

¶12

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that in the alleged incident no person received any firearm injury. No medical report of injured Neha is available in the case diary. Identically

¶13

BAIL No. 42432 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

placed co-accused Karan Saroj has been granted bail by this Court.

¶16

Insofar as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court, if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, when no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused. Hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶17

In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para- 30 has observed as under:

¶18

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a historysheeter, we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶19

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 , 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.

¶20

Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost three months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Let the applicant- Abhay Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he:

¶22

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶23

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶24

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶25

BAIL No. 42432 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

(iv) shall appear on the first Sunday of every month at the Police Station concerned.