Salman @ Dablu vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the gang chart, two cases have been shown against the applicant. In both the cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail. The bail orders are on record and have been collectively filed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. Apart from these cases, the applicant has a criminal history of ten other cases, which has been explained in paragraph 6 of the supplementary affidavit, and he is on bail in all those cases. The bail orders relating thereto have been collectively annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the bail application. Except for the aforesaid cases, the applicant has no other criminal history, and no other case is pending against him. The applicant has been in jail since 27.09.2025.

¶11

It is also submitted that the co-accused persons, namely Aftab Khan and Mohd. Zeeshan, have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 10946 of 2025. The applicant claims parity with the bail order of the coaccused persons.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant is ready to furnish an undertaking in terms of the requirement of Section 19(4)(b) of the

¶13

BAIL No. 588 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. It is also submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing from judicial custody or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

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

¶17

On due consideration of the facts that the applicant is on bail in the cases shown in the gang chart as well as in other cases; that the coaccused, named above, has already been granted bail by this Court; and that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.09.2025, 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.

¶18

Accordingly, the application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant Salman @ Dablu , involved in Case Crime No. 331 of 2025 under Sections 2(b)(i)/3 of the U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Haiderabad, District Lakhimpur Kheri, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions which are imposed in the interest of justice:

¶20

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

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize or intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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 to the trial court to treat it as an abuse of the liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶24

BAIL No. 588 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

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

¶27

(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 I.P.C. (now Section 269 BNS).

¶28

(vii) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and, in order to secure his presence, a 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A I.P.C. (now Section 209 BNS).

¶29

January 30, 2026 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Salman @ Dablu v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman @ Dablu v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. 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

Adarsh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Animal Husbandry and Dairying Lko. and 3 Others

Gulshan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Abhi Agrahari @ Amal Agrahari @ Aman Aarahari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Sultan (in Fir Sultan @ Suleman) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anees vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Mohammad Salim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.