Allahabad High Court
RAMCHANDRA YADAV @ MAIKUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail, and the bail application is allowed.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ramchandra Yadav under Sections 2(b)(1) and 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated and pointed to the bail granted to co‑accused in similar cases. The State did not dispute the applicant’s criminal history but opposed bail. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Prabhakar Tewari and the principles laid down in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, the Court found no improper exercise of discretion and noted the applicant’s long pre‑trial detention since June 2025. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions and sureties. Consequently, the bail application was allowed and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, despite being implicated in a case under the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial.
- Whether the applicant’s criminal history and the seriousness of the offence preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act — s. 2(b)(1), 3(1)
Subjects
- bail
- U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act
- false implication
- pre‑trial detention
- Supreme Court precedent
- sureties
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15379 of 2026
Ramchandra Yadav @ Maiku
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Siddharth Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant, Learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 77 of 2026, under Section 2(b)(1), 3(1) of
U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, registered at P.S.
Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of his trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of single base case shown
in the gang chart, in which he has been bailed out. The criminal history of the
applicant was considered by this Court while granting bail to him in the base
case. The Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the similarly
situated co-accused namely Ram Ashish Yadav and Saurabh @ Kariya, who
are said to be members of the gang have been granted bail by this Court vide
its orders dated 4.5.2026 and 5.5.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. - 14793 of 2026 ( Ram Ashish Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) and
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 14029 of 2026 ( Saurabh @ Kariya Vs.
State of U.P.) respectively. The applicant is not stated to be a previous
convict. He is languishing in jail since 13.6.2025. It is further submitted that in
case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will
cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He, however, does not
dispute the explanation of the criminal history that has been given by the
applicant.
5. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. & Another
(2020) 11 SCC 648, while considering a challenge to an order granting bail to
an accused having several cases against him, has held in paragraph 7 as
under :
BAIL No. 15379 of 2026
2
"7. On considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
having regard to the circumstances of this case, in our opinion, there has been
no wrong or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court in
granting bail to the accused. The factors outlined in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar,
(2020) 2 SCC 118 for testing the legality of an order granting bail are absent in
the order Vikram Singh v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 5566 impugned.
The materials available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the order
impugned suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail
is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. The
offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal
cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be
the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The High Court has exercised its
discretion in granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh upon considering
relevant materials. No ex facie error in the order has been shown by the
appellant which would establish exercise of such discretion to be improper.
We accordingly sustain the order Vikram Singh v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC
OnLine All 5566 of the High Court granting bail. This appeal is dismissed.
6. I have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as
submissions made by Learned counsels for the parties.
7. The applicant has been shown to be indulged in one base case mentioned
in the gang chart. This Court while considering the bail application of the
applicant in the base case being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4982 of
2026 had considered the pendency of the criminal cases against the applicant.
Similarly situated co-accused namely Ram Ashish Yadav and Saurabh @
Kariya have already been granted bail by this Court. The applicant is said to
be in jail since 13.6.2025 and the trial against him is not likely to conclude in
near future.
8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and taking into
account the above mentioned facts and circumstances and also the fact that
the applicant is in jail since 13.6.2025, I am of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the accused-applicant, Ramchandra Yadav @ Maiku involved in
above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a
personal bond and two reliable 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.
(ii) The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and
co-operate in the trial.
(iv) The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the
BAIL No. 15379 of 2026
3
trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted by the court
concerned.
11. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court
concerned will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
12. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of
High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the
undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
13. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the
concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure
early release of the applicant.
May 6, 2026
Fahad
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
FAHAD NIYAZ
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…