##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15380 of 2026

Akash Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite

Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Siddharth Rai

Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 72

HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant, Learned A.G.A. for the State and

perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the

applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 77 of 2026, under Section 2(b)(1), 3(1) of

U.P. Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Act, registered at P.S.

Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of his trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been

falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of single base case shown

in the gang chart, in which he has been bailed out. He further submits that

apart from the base case mentioned in the gang chart, the applicant has a

criminal history of three other cases. The Learned counsel for the applicant

further contends that the similarly situated co-accused namely Ram Ashish

Yadav and Saurabh @ Kariya, who are said to be members of the gang have

been granted bail by this Court vide its orders dated 4.5.2026 and 5.5.2026

passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 14793 of 2026 ( Ram Ashish

Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 14029 of

2026 ( Saurabh @ Kariya Vs. State of U.P.) respectively. The applicant is not

stated to be a previous convict. He is languishing in jail since 12.3.2026. It is

further submitted that in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse

the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He, however, does not

dispute the explanation of the criminal history that has been given by the

applicant.

5. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. & Another

(2020) 11 SCC 648, while considering a challenge to an order granting bail to

an accused having several cases against him, has held in paragraph 7 as

under :

BAIL No. 15380 of 2026

2

"7. On considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,

having regard to the circumstances of this case, in our opinion, there has been

no wrong or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court in

granting bail to the accused. The factors outlined in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar,

(2020) 2 SCC 118 for testing the legality of an order granting bail are absent in

the order Vikram Singh v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 5566 impugned.

The materials available do not justify arriving at the conclusion that the order

impugned suffers from non-application of mind or the reason for granting bail

is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. The

offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal

cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be

the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The High Court has exercised its

discretion in granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh upon considering

relevant materials. No ex facie error in the order has been shown by the

appellant which would establish exercise of such discretion to be improper.

We accordingly sustain the order Vikram Singh v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC

OnLine All 5566 of the High Court granting bail. This appeal is dismissed.

6. I have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as

submissions made by Learned counsels for the parties.

7. The applicant has been shown to be involved in one base case mentioned

in the gang chart. This Court while considering the bail application of the

applicant in the base case being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30044 of

2025 had considered the pendency of the criminal cases against the applicant.

Similarly situated co-accused namely Ram Ashish Yadav and Saurabh @

Kariya have already been granted bail by this Court. The applicant is said to

be in jail since