MULAYAM YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14220 of 2026

Mulayam Yadav
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P.
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                    :   Rajesh Singh Baish
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A.

Court No. - 73
                 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been
received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on
merits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was
not named in the First Information Report. The First Information Report
was lodged with the allegation that co-accused persons were engaged in
offence of Cow Slaughter Act and co-accused Rahul Yadav deposited the
amount in the account of Constable Satyendra Yadav and Ajay Patel. It is
submitted that the name of applicant has surfaced during investigation as
the person, who has transferred the online amount in favour of co-accused
Satyendra Yadav, who is Constable. Learned counsel for applicant has
transferred the amount as loan for the marriage of sister of co-accused
Satyendra Yadav. Learned counsel for applicant submits that there is no
evidence linking the applicant with the alleged Cow Slaughter Act.
Applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The criminal history of
applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 22 of the affidavit and
paragraph no.2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 25.4.2026. Applicant
is languishing in jail since 17.2.2026 and in case he is released on bail, he
will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however,
                                                                 BAIL No. 14220 of 2026
                                    2


could not show as to how applicant is linked with the aforesaid crime.

5. Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of
the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice
of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of
witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj
Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we
may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But,
it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in
respect of which he has been booked."

6. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020
(11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of
several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for
refusal of bail.

7. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not
the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise
adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate
witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any
material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the
accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail
only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on
the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to
accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the
applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

8. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well
recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article
21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex
Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any
exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the
applicant.

9. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA
                                                        BAIL No. 14220 of 2026
                               3


for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses
or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would
intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert
justice or tamper with the evidence.

10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or
circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or
thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of
repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown
by learned AGA for the State.

11. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or
circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger
interests of the public or State.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence,
evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for
the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
The bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant Mulayam Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 131
of 2025, under Section 8 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station
Syed Raza, District Chandauli 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 the following conditions:-

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

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

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make
himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when
required.

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is
                                                                                          BAIL No. 14220 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    suspected.

                                    v. 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.

                                    vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
                                    the Court.

                                    vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant
                                    shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

                                    14. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall
                                    be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.



                                                                                     (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    D. Tamang




Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA TAMANG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad