Raj @ Gabbar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Heard Shri Syed Mohd. Munis Jafari learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Prashant Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶12

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that an altercation occurred with the son of the complainant on 19.07.2025 at about 10:15 p.m. The complainant’s son was staying at Ashu Home Stay, Krishnanagar, Devkali, when on 20.07.2025, at around 5:00 a.m., a group of named and unknown persons, armed with sticks and iron rods, forcibly entered his room, brutally assaulted him with the alleged intent to kill, dragged him outside, continued to beat him, and abandoned him near the canal behind Dabhaseemar Stadium, believing him to be dead. The entire assault was captured on CCTV, and during the incident, his mobile phone and purse went missing.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a general role in causing injury has been attributed to twelve named and several unnamed persons, and there is no specific allegation against the applicant regarding causing injury to the injured. In his statement, the injured has also assigned only a general role of beating to the named accused persons. Although the applicant has been assigned the role of dragging the injured and forcing him to sit on the motorcycle along with the aid of co-accused persons, a perusal of the injury report reveals that the injured has not suffered any grievous injury. In total, the injured sustained nine injuries of a simple nature, for which multiple persons, including the applicant, have allegedly been implicated.

¶14

BAIL No. 9257 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application, submitting that the incident is captured on CCTV and is not a case of false implication; however, they do not dispute that the injured did not sustain any fractures.

¶18

Upon due consideration of the statement of the injured, the injury report, the general role assigned in the prosecution case, the absence of any specific allegation of causing injury by the applicant, and the explanation of the applicant’s criminal antecedents in paragraph 20 of the bail application, coupled with the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 04.08.2025, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is fit for granting bail to the applicant

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant Raj @ Gabbar Yadav, involved in Crime No. 367 of 2025, U/S-191(2), 191 (3),190, 333,109 (1),140 (1),115 (2), 352 B.N.S., P. S.Kotwali Nagar, District- Ayodhya, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶21

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶22

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶23

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶24

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed. 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.

¶25

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶26

December 16, 2025/R.C.

¶27

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

Raj @ Gabbar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj @ Gabbar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Abhishek Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Karishma Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jai Prakash Yadav @ Jagjeevan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kumar Gaurav Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Dilshad Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shan Ahmad Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Lko. and Another