Allahabad High Court
BAIL/35124/2026 of DAYARAM Vs STATE OF U.P. on 8 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35124 of 2026 Court No. - 68 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Jasram Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35124 of 2026
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Jasram Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.263 of 2026, under Sections 2(ख)(1)(17)/3(1) of U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Nehtaur, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution under the Gangsters Act have been launched against the applicant on the basis of one criminal case shown in the gang chart in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. The details of criminal case have been mentioned in the affidavit accompanying the bail application. He has been falsely implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. He is not the member of any gang. It is further stated that there is no other criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.9.2026. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned learned State Law Officer opposed the prayer for bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dayaram .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Dayaram, be released on bail in the aforementioned case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits. October 9, 2026 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 35124 of 2026 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad