Allowed¶22

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

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2026BAIL/2443/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gangsters Act bail granted; Section 19(4) U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986 conditions complied with as accused already enlarged on bail in all cases including Case Crime Nos.129 of 2025, 22 of 2023 and 491 of 2020; Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 relied upon; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Manish Mathur J.; BAIL No. 2443 of 2026; Case Crime No.29 of 2026, P.S. Amethi, District Amethi; decided April 7, 2026; bail conditions referencing Sections 229-A and 174-A IPC and Sections 82 and 313 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Atul Kumar Yadav to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (i)-(iv) imposed in the interest of justice. ¶22

Atul Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, already enlarged on bail in all the cases shown against him (per the gang chart and affidavit), is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No.29 of 2026 under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the conditions of Section 19(4) being complied with at this stage.

¶7

Court's answer

Since the applicant has already been enlarged on bail in all the cases filed against him, the conditions indicated in Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 stand complied with at this stage and, prima facie and subject to further evidence being led in trial, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed under U.P. Gangsters Act — applicant already on bail in all gang-chart cases. Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Manish Mathur, J., allowed the first bail application of Atul Kumar Yadav in Case Crime No.29 of 2026 under Section 2(b)(i)/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (P.S. Amethi, District Amethi). The gang chart showed the applicant involved in Case Crime Nos.129 of 2025 and 22 of 2023, in which he had been enlarged on bail by orders dated 08.07.2025 and 17.07.2023, and in six further cases in all of which he stood enlarged on bail — a fact the State did not dispute. Relying on Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Court found, prima facie and subject to further evidence at trial, that the conditions in Section 19(4) of the Gangsters Act stood complied with at this stage and that the applicant was entitled to release on bail. Bail was granted on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions requiring the applicant's presence at trial, no adjournment when witnesses are present, and exposure under Sections 229-A and 174-A IPC and Sections 82 and 313 Cr.P.C. in case of absence, proclamation or misuse of the liberty of bail.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2443 of 2026

Atul Kumar Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

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

¶7

Court No. - 12

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

¶10

1A. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶11

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.29 of 2026, under Section 2(b)(i)/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 P.S. Amethi, District Amethi.

¶12

Learned counsel for applicant submits that as per gang chart, applicant is shown involved in two cases bearing Case Crime No.129 of 2025 and Case Crime No.22 of 2023 in which he has been enlarged on bail in both the cases vide orders dated 08.07.2025 and 17.07.2023 respectively as averred in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the affidavit and copy of the bail orders have been brought on record as Annexures 3 and 4 respectively.

¶13

It is submitted that apart from aforesaid cases, applicant is shown involved in six more cases which have been duly explained in paragraph-10 onward of the affidavit filed in support of the Bail Application, in which he is enlarged on bail in all those cases. It is further submitted that the year of Case Crime No.491 of 2020 was corrected with order correcting the year being brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact that applicant is enlarged on bail in all the

¶15

BAIL No. 2443 of 2026

¶16

¶17

cases indicated against him.

¶18

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶19

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶20

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶21

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicant has already been enlarged on bail in all the cases filed against him as averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application and therefore conditions indicated in Section 19(4) U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 stand complied with at this stage, therefore the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶22

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let applicant Atul Kumar Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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:-

¶24

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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.

¶25

BAIL No. 2443 of 2026

¶26

¶27

(ii) 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/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

(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 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law.

¶30

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶31

April 7, 2026 kvg/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Prakash Yadav @ Dangar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Teja Singh @ Tej Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ram Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ram Sewak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Awadhesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another