Golu Yadav @ Subham vs State Of U.P.

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4354 of 2026

Golu Yadav @ Subham

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)

:

Akash Deep Srivastava, Pooja

Counsel for Opposite Party(s)

:

G.A., Himanshu Goswami, Saurabh Sharma

Court No. - 71

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Sri Akash Deep Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Himanshu Goswami, learned counsel for the informant and Learned AGA for the State.

2. It is contended by learned AGA that instruction is not being received so far and seeks time.

3. The learned counsel for applicant seeks interim anticipatory bail.

4. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0056 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 351(3), 352, 109 BNS (old Sections 147, 504, 506, 307 IPC), P.S. Kotwali, District Varanasi during pendency of the trial.

5 It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused/applicant has been falsely implicated by the informant in FIR dated 07.03.2026, wherein the allegation is that the accused/applicant along with other co-accused have entered in the house of informant and attempted to extort money of Rs. 5 Lakhs. It is further alleged that the accused/applicant has opened fire on the family members of the informant. It is a no injury case. Initially the FIR has been lodged on 30.06.2024 by the father of the accused/applicant against the family members of the informant as case crime no. 49 of 2024, P.S. Dashashvmegh, District Kashi (Kashi Commissionerate), wherein the charge sheet is submitted. The accused/applicant has criminal history of seven cases, wherein final report is submitted in one of the case, in three cases bail has already been granted, the charge sheet is not submitted in two cases and in one of the case proceeding stayed by this Court. The investigation is continuing. The accused/applicant wants to cooperate in the investigation but apprehending arrest. He submits that the present FIR is merely to pressurize the applicant. Hence seeks anticipatory bail. Further submits that the co-accused Abhishek Sahani has already been granted bail by this Court in order dated 29.04.2026. The role of accused/applicant is similar in nature to the co-accused, who has already been granted bail.

6. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

7. The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three insightful judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court right from G6urubaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it is consistently held by Hon'ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory bail, the Court should considering the application of the applicant to evaluate the threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or exaggerated implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the accused and flight risk.

8. This Court while considering the arguments, gravity of accusation and apprehension of arrest in the case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance of the accused in cooperating with the investigation and trial, is of considered view to grant interim bail.

9. The applicant- Golu Yadav @ Subham involved in the aforesaid case crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer as the case may be within thirty days from the date of this order and shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with 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 BNSS.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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.

10. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

11. List this case on 28.07.2026.

12. Learned AGA is directed to obtain instructions by the next date.

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

May 6, 2026

Abhishek Sri.