Allahabad High Court

AVIRAL YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, subject to a personal bond, two sureties and prescribed conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Aviral Yadav in a case under Sections 309(6), 317(2), 317(5), 109(1), 111 and 61(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR and that the co‑accused’s statements implicating him were unreliable, with no incriminating material recovered. The State opposed bail on the ground of the applicant’s criminal antecedents. The Court observed that the applicant’s name was disclosed only by co‑accused in custody, that no material suggested he would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, and that criminal history alone cannot deny bail. Citing Supreme Court precedents that a history‑sheeter may still be granted bail and that multiple pending cases are not a ground for refusal, the Court noted the applicant had been in custody for over ten months with no prospect of a speedy trial. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties and specific conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR and the co‑accused’s statements are unreliable.
Whether the accused’s criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.
Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention and pendency of trial warrant bail.
Whether parity with a co‑accused who was previously granted bail applies.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 111, 309(6), 317(2), 317(5), 61(2)

Subjects

bail
criminal antecedents
first information report
co‑accused statements
trial pendency
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3437 of 2026

Aviral Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Yadav, Chandra Shekher
Dwivedi, Gaurav Tiwari, Ray Sahab
Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K. Sharma, learned
AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.343 of 2025, under Sections 309(6),
317(2), 317(5), 109(1), 111, 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Line Bazar,
District - Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the
first information report. On the basis of information furnished by an
informer, two persons namely Akash Yadav and Rishabh Yadav were
arrested. The said two co-accused disclosed the name of the applicant and
eight others while in police custody. The said statements, insofar as they
implicate the applicant, are unreliable. No recovery of any incriminating
article has been made from the applicant. The applicant is neither a member
of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. It
is next contended that co-accused Akash Yadav has been granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 6.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.38501 of 2025. Applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant
has been explained in paragraph-30 of the bail application and paragraph-3
of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 19.11.2025 and
in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the
applicant has criminal antecedents.
BAIL No. 3437 of 2026
2

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first
information report. His name was disclosed by co-accused Akash Yadav and
Rishabh Yadav while in police custody. No recovery of any incriminating
article has been made from the applicant. The co-accused Akash Yadav has
been granted bail by this Court.

6. 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. In the opinion of this Court, 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.

7. 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."

8. 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.

9. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than ten months
and after submission of the charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion
of trial, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion
that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the applicant- Aviral Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in
view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned subject to conditions that he:
BAIL No. 3437 of 2026
3

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and

(v) shall mark his presence at the concerned police station on first Sunday of
every month between 11.00 am and 12.00 noon.

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

September 23, 2026
Manish Kr

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…