# Aman Yadav v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 968
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13548 of 2026
- **Bench:** Jitendra Kumar Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aman-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-54428
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather
than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The Court
should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead
to undesirable results.

 l) The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of
the case against any of the party.

 m) The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be
tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is
given to the other party.

 n) The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in
order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with
care, caution and circumspection. The Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest
of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities
to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right."

15. In view of the foregoing discussions and applying the various principles set out above,
the factors noted by the Trial Court and the conclusion drawn are all appropriate and just and the
order impugned does not call for any interference. The Trial Court shall proceed with the trial from
the stage it was left and conclude the same, expeditiously, in accordance with law.

16. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. is dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 968
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13548 of 2026

Aman Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, considering the nature of allegations, the material collected during investigation,
recovery of alleged stolen articles from the possession of applicant, period of incarceration, and the likelihood
of delay in conclusion of trial, the accused-applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of
trial.

Headnotes
4 All. Aman Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
969
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - s. 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - ss. 309(6),
317(2) - Arms Act, 1959 - ss.3/25 - Robbery - Stolen property - Bail - Grant of - The prosecution
case was that three unknown persons allegedly intercepted the first informant and his wife by
hitting their scooty, causing them to fall down, and thereafter snatched a bag containing
jewellery, cash and mobile phones - Further, an FIR was registered against unknown persons -
During investigation, the applicant was arrested and certain stolen articles were allegedly
recovered from his possession - The applicant sought bail on the ground of false implication,
absence of criminal history, prolonged incarceration, and likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial
- The State opposed the bail application.
Held: FIR has been lodged against three unknown persons and as per FIR three unknown persons are said to
have hit the scooty of the first informant as a result of which first informant and his wife fell down and
thereafter three unknown persons are said to have snatched the bag containing jewellery, cash and mobile
phones - During investigation, the applicant has been arrested and some stolen articles are said to have been
recovered from his possession - Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from
record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, it is a fit case for bail - Hence, the instant
bail application allowed with certain directions. [Paras 5 to 9] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Arms Act, 1959

List of Keywords
Bail Application; BNS, 2023; Arms Act, 1959; BNSS, 2023; Falsely implicated; FIR; Unknown persons; During
investigation name of accused surfaced; Recovery of stolen articles from his possession; Hit the scooty of first
informant; Unknown persons snatched the bag containing jewellery, cash and mobile phones; Bail application
allowed.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 13548 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order passed in Crime No. 94 of 2025, Police Station - Shivrajpur, District - Kanpur
Nagar.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Applicant(s):
Hari Nath Chaubey

Adv. for the Opposite Party(s)
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.)

1. Heard Sri Hari Nath Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shiv Dutt Shukla,
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.
94 of 2025, under Sections 309(6), 317(2) BNS and Section 3/25 Arms Act, registered at Police
Station Shivrajpur, District Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial.
970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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 and he has been languishing in jail since 3.6.2025. It is
further submitted that FIR has been lodged against three unknown persons and during investigation
the name of the applicant has surfaced and some stolen articles are said to have been recovered
from his possession. It is also submitted that the applicant 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. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant.

5. FIR has been lodged against three unknown persons and as per FIR three unknown persons
are said to have hit the scooty of the first informant as a result of which first informant and his wife
fell down and thereafter three unknown persons are said to have snatched the bag containing
jewellery, cash and mobile phones. During investigation, the applicant has been arrested and some
stolen articles are said to have been recovered from his possession.

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- Aman Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 with the following conditions :-

(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.

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
4 All. Mohit Yadav @ Mohit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
971
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.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 971
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3360 of 2026

Mohit Yadav @ Mohit Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the First Information Report registered under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was liable to be quashed on the ground that no joint meeting of the
competent authorities had taken place for approval of gang chart as mandated by Rule 5(3)(a) of Uttar
Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, thereby vitiating the preparation of
gang chart and the consequential FIR.

Headnotes
U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - ss. 2(b)(i), 2(b)(xi), 2(b)(xiv),
2(b)(xxv), and 3(1) - Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules,
2021 - Rules. 5(3)(a), 16 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - s. 14 - Gang chart -
Requirement of joint meeting - Competent Authorities - Approval - Procedural Compliance -
Legality - FIR - Quashing of - Impugned order - The petitioner challenged the First Information
Report dated 17.03.2026 registered under various provisions of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - The principal contention advanced was that the gang chart
forming the foundation of prosecution had been prepared and approved without convening the
mandatory joint meeting contemplated under Rule 5(3)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 - It was urged that such non-compliance rendered the
gang chart and the consequential FIR legally unsustainable - While the State produced the
minutes of a joint meeting dated 23.02.2026 held between the Commissioner of Police and
Deputy Commissioner of Police (East), Lucknow, wherein approval of proposed gang chart was
deliberated and endorsed.

Held: From the perusal of the record reveals that the gang chart was prepared by the concerned Police
Station, detailing the criminal activities of the gang, and subsequently presented for approval - It was
forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, along with all relevant annexures - The Commissioner of
Police, Commissionerate Lucknow, upon being satisfied that sufficient grounds existed for initiating action
under the Act, approved the gang chart on 24.02.2026 - The legal requirement under Rule 5 of Rules, 2021,
mandates that a joint meeting must be held between the head of police and head of district administration for
approval of a gang chart - In the district of Lucknow, where the Police Commissionerate system is in force, the
Commissioner of Police exercises the powers of an Executive Magistrate as envisaged u/s 14 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 - Furthermore, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Gabbar Singh (infra) cited by learned counsel for the petitioner does not support the petitioner's stance - The