Allahabad High Court
ANUJ YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail was granted to the applicant on the ground of parity with a similarly situated co‑accused.
Summary
Anuj Yadav was charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act for offences alleged to have occurred in Surajpur, Gautam Buddh Nagar. He applied for bail during the pendency of the trial. The court examined the facts, the criminal history of the applicant, and noted that a co‑accused, Shubham Saxena, had previously been granted bail in a similar case. Considering parity with the earlier order and the absence of any compelling reason to deny bail, the court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted on the condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard conditions such as not tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act during the pendency of trial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318, 319, 336, 338, 340, 61
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66-D
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- Information Technology Act
- parity
- sureties
- non-bailable offences
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31909 of 2026
Anuj Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Divyanshu Pathak, Suraj Upadhyay, Vartika
Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.91 out of 318)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Suraj Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yashonidhi
Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.694 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4),
338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS and Section 66-D of I.T. Act, Police Station Surajpur,
District Central (Commissionerate Gautam Buddh Nagar), during the pendency of
trial.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by
learned counsels for the parties, and taking into consideration that similarly placed co-
accused, Shubham Saxena, has already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 14.7.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12842 of
2026, coupled with the fact that criminal history assigned to the applicant stands
explained, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The
bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.
5. Let the applicant- Anuj Yadav, be released on bail in the aforementioned case
crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
6. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein
shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 9, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…