Allahabad High Court
ANOOP YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that bail is appropriate and granted it with specified conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for Anoop Yadav, who was charged under multiple sections of the U.P. Gangster and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act. The applicant claimed innocence, highlighted that he was already on bail in four related cases and had a large pending criminal docket, arguing that trial delays made continued detention unwarranted. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and the applicant’s extensive criminal history. After reviewing the record, the Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, found the case suitable for bail and ordered release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, imposing conditions to prevent tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and non‑attendance. The order expressly limited its scope to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s future determinations.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for offences under the U.P. Gangster and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act despite the applicant’s extensive criminal history.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of innocence and the pendency of trial justify bail.
- What conditions may be imposed on bail to safeguard the trial process.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351, 483
- U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act — s. 2(b)(i), 2(b)(iv), 2(b)(viii), 2(b)(xi), 2(b)(xvii), 3(1)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- U.P. Gangster and Anti‑Social Activities Act
- trial pendency
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7814 of 2026
Anoop Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Pandey, Lavkush Yadav, Nikil
Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Nikhil Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State- respondents and perused the
record.
2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant, with a
prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 588 of 2025, under
Sections 2(b)(i), 2(b)(iv), 2(b)(viii), 2(b)(xi), 2(b)(xvii) and 3(1) of U.P.
Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, registered at Police
Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur, during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is
further submitted that the applicant is on bail in all the four cases that
have been shown against him in the gang chart, apart from the above, the
applicant is having criminal history of 28 other cases. Out of 28 other
cases, he is on bail in 26 cases and in two cases, the bail application of the
applicant is pending before this Court. The applicant is languishing in jail
since 27.12.2025, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if
granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency
of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of
trial.
4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
BAIL No. 7814 of 2026
2
applicant.
5. Applicant is on bail in all the four cases that have been shown against
him in the gang chart, apart from the above, the applicant is having
criminal history of 28 other cases. Out of 28 other cases, he is on bail in
26 cases and in two cases, the bail application of the applicant is pending
before this Court. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.12.2025.
6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I
find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is
allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Anoop Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime
shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-
with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned :-
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii)
recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses
are present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
BAIL No. 7814 of 2026
3
9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as
an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely
free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
unaffected by anything said in this order.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
April 20, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…