Ram Singh @ Nanka Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the gang chart, two cases have been shown against the applicant. In all the cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail. The bail orders are annexed collectively with the affidavit filed in support of the bail application as Annexure no. 3. Apart from these cases, there is a criminal history of 19 other cases against the applicant which has been duly explained by the learned counsel for the applicant in the bail application. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 17.01.2025.

¶12

It is also submitted that the applicant is ready to furnish an undertaking in terms of requirement of Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

¶13

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

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also the period for which the applicant is in jail i.e. since 17.01.2025 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶16

BAIL No. 12636 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

Let the applicant- Ram Singh @ Nanka Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 04 of 2025, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Hathigawan, District Pratapgarh 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall also file an undertaking in terms of requirement of Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that he will not indulge in any case or misuse the liberty of bail.

¶24

(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 269 B.N.S.

¶25

(vii) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S 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 209 B.N.S.

¶26

The bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶27

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶28

January 19, 2026 Preeti

¶29

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Singh @ Nanka Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh @ Nanka Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Similar cases

Sachin Kumar (Services No 255371009) vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Govt. New Delhi and 3 Others

Nikhil Panwar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Akanksha Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Evam Pustahar Lko. and 5 Others

Sanjay Shukla @ Sanjay Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Affairs Lko.

Rajendra Kumar Verma @ Rajendra Verma @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko.

Krishan Gopal Swarnkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another