Allahabad High Court
AKASH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail under the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Akash Yadav, who was arrested under Sections 2(b)(1) and 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act in Crime No. 77 of 2026. The applicant claimed false implication and pointed to the bail granted to similarly situated co‑accused, while the State did not dispute his criminal history. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhakar Tewari and the principles laid down in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, the Court held that the seriousness of the offence and pending cases alone do not preclude bail. Noting that the applicant had been in custody since 12 March 2026 and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, the Court concluded that he was entitled to bail. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, criminal activity, intimidation of witnesses, and mandating regular court appearances.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused under the U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act despite the seriousness of the offence and multiple pending cases.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged false implication and the bail granted to co‑accused affect the discretion to grant 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
- discretion
- false implication
- criminal history
- Supreme Court precedent
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15380 of 2026
Akash Yadav
.....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. He further submits that
apart from the base case mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant has a
criminal history of three other cases. 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 12.3.2026. 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. 15380 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 involved 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. 30044 of
2025 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 12.3.2026 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 12.3.2026, 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, Akash Yadav 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. 15380 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…