Akhilesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44078

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7009 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Akhilesh Yadav

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant, while pressing the present bail application, submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated not only in the present case but also in the two cases mentioned in the gang chart. It is pointed out that in both cases mentioned in the gang chart, wherein commercial quantity of ganja is alleged to have been recovered, the applicant has already been granted bail. Copies of the respective bail orders are on record as Annexures No. 4 and 5 to the bail application.

¶9

It is further submitted that apart from the cases mentioned in the gang chart, one additional case is pending against the applicant, in which he has also been granted bail. A copy of the bail order in that case has been filed as Annexure No. 6 to the application.

¶10

Learned counsel has also drawn the Court’s attention to the fact that co-accused Naveen Singh, stated to be the gang leader, has been granted bail vide order dated 19.09.2023, a copy of which is on record as Annexure No. 7.

¶11

It has been further submitted that applicant is in jail since 31.01.2023 and if facility of bail is granted, there is no apprehension that he will flee from the judicial process and he will abide by the orders passed by the Court below and will co-

¶12

operate in speedy trial of the case.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but has not disputed the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶14

Considering the fact that in both cases under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity mentioned in the gang chart, as well as in one additional case, the applicant has already been granted bail, and further taking note that co-accused Naveen Singh has also been enlarged on bail, coupled with the fact that the applicant is in custody since 31.01.2023, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant, Akhilesh Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 8/2023, under Sections 2/3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station - Peeperpur, District - Amethi, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) 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.

¶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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall submit an undertaking on affidavit in terms of Section 19 (4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social

¶22

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that he will not indulge in any case for or misuse the liberty of bail.

¶23

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code (Now Section 269 of BNS).

¶24

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶25

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶26

Order Date :- 30.7.2025 R.C.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akhilesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hasnain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Raj Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Meraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Dhirendra Alias Baba Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Harikesh Verma (in Id Harikesh) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Asgar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.