Allahabad High Court
SANJEEV KUMAR YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail is warranted and granted it to the applicants subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 filed by Sanjeev Kumar Yadav and Sudhir Singh, who were alleged to be involved in a criminal case (Crime No. 336 of 2023) and were already on bail in a related gang‑chart case. The applicants contended that they were innocent, had no other pending cases, and pledged to cooperate with the investigation, while the State opposed the bail. The Court applied the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the need to assess the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the accused, and the risk of fleeing or tampering with evidence. After evaluating the submissions and the fact that the applicants were already on bail in a solitary case and had no other charges, the Court found a case for anticipatory bail without expressing an opinion on the merits. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond of Rs 50,000 and specific conditions including non‑tampering with evidence, cooperation with trial, and no travel abroad without permission. The order also empowered the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail if any condition is violated.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicants under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 considering the nature of the accusation, antecedents, and flight risk.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- U.P. Gangsters Act
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
- flight risk
- evidence tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2362 of 2026
Sanjeev Kumar Yadav And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neha Khan, Tarannum
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Ms, Tarannum, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Umashankar
Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case
Crime No.336 of 2023, under Section-3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-Ali Nagar, District-
Chandauli with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be
released on bail.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants
are innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further
submitted that the applicants are on bail in solitary case shown against them
in the gang-chart. It is further submitted that apart from the above, the
applicants are having no other case registered against them. It was also
submitted that applicants undertake to co-operate during trial and they would
appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has
been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall
not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and
would obey all conditions of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for grant
of anticipatory bail.
5. It is apparent that the applicants are on bail in solitary case shown against
them in the gang-chart and apart from the above, the applicants are having
NABAIL No. 2362 of 2026
2
no other case registered against them.
6. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State
of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and
gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee
from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against
the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be
taken into consideration.
7. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding
anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role of
applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without
expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
9. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Sanjeev Kumar Yadav and
Sudhir Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned,
with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence and that they would appear
before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court
concerned;
(ii) The applicants 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer;
(iii) The applicants would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the
liberty of bail.
(iv) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the
Court concerned.
10. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to
NABAIL No. 2362 of 2026
3
file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to
the applicants.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
March 19, 2026
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…