Shani @ Shani Dev vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2025, under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Antu, District- Pratapgarh.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the gang chart, only single case has been shown against the applicant, in which he is on bail. The bail order is on record as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Apart from the case(s) mentioned in the gang chart, there is no other previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 3.12.2024.

¶14

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. 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.

¶15

BAIL No. 3139 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

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.

¶18

On due consideration to the facts that the applicant is in jail since 3.12.2024; the applicant has been enlarged on bail in the cases shown in the gang chart; 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.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant- Shani @ Shani Dev involved in the aforesaid case crime/F.I.R. number 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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 in accordance with law.

¶27

BAIL No. 3139 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

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

¶30

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

¶31

May 11, 2026 Shravan

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shani @ Shani Dev v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shani @ Shani Dev v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. 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

Binam Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Avinash Shukla @ Ashu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Tulsi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Harshit Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pragati Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Shubham Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.