Allahabad High Court
SURAJ YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the lack of evidentiary link and the mere existence of a criminal record are insufficient to deny bail.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Suraj Yadav in a case involving alleged possession of a pistol, cartridges, a mobile phone and Rs.3,200 under various sections of the Uttar Pradesh B.N.S. and the Arms Act. The applicant contended that he was not named in the FIR, was implicated only during investigation, and that co‑accused had already been granted bail, seeking parity. The State opposed bail on the ground of the applicant’s criminal antecedents. The Court observed that there was no independent witness or corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the alleged recovery and that criminal history alone does not justify denial of bail, citing Ash Mohammad and Prabhakar Tewari. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of the applicant on bail with a personal bond, two heavy sureties and specific conditions. The bail was granted subject to conditions of appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, non‑pressurising of witnesses and monthly police‑station reporting.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused was not named in the FIR and there is no corroborative evidence linking him to the alleged offence.
- Whether the accused’s criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.
- Whether parity with co‑accused who have been granted bail warrants granting bail to the applicant.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedents
- first information report
- investigation
- arms act
- parity
- surety
- non‑cognizable offence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34693 of 2026
Suraj Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ikshwaku Srivastava, Pradeep Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned
AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on
record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge
the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 114 of 2026, under Sections
319(2), 318(4), 109(1), 308(5), 127(2), 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section
3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Sikrara, District- Jaunpur, during the
pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in
the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of
investigation. No amount relating to the alleged transaction has been
credited to the applicant's bank account. False recovery of a country made
pistol, two live cartridges, a mobile phone and Indian currency of Rs.
3,200/- has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent
witness to the alleged recovery. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any
illicit transaction. Identically placed co-accused Abhishek Gupta urf
Buddhu and Vishal Gautam @ Toni have already been granted bail by
this Court vide orders dated 04.06.2026 and 25.05.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17367 of 2026 and Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.15784 of 2026, respectively. The applicant claims
parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph
no.20 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant
is in jail since 30.03.2026 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.
BAIL No. 34693 of 2026
2
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the
applicant has criminal antecedents.
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. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course
of investigation. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery.
At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with
the offence.
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 almost six months,
there is no hope of early conclusion of trial and 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- Suraj Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case crime
be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy
sureties (in view of the criminal history) each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:
BAIL No. 34693 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.
(iv) shall mark his presence at the concerned police station on first
Sunday of every month between 11:00 am to 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 29, 2026
Abhishek
(Vivek Varma, J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…