Allowed

Sudeep Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2025/1508/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought bail in a stabbing case under BNS sections; counsel cited postmortem findings and bail granted to co-accused who allegedly did the stabbing. Court granted bail on grounds of parity, no criminal history and time served.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, with conditions imposed.

Sudeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45485

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1508 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sudeep Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Tiwari,Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Sheo Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 12.11.2024 at about 11.30 pm, the nephew of the complainant has been attacked by unknown assailants and he was stabbed with a screwdriver by them.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the postmortem report, there are three ante-mortem injuries, out of which one is lacerated wound of 2x1 cm over front of neck and another is stabbed wound of 0.5x0.5 cm over left lower abdomen side 6cm below from left side of umbilicus. Cause of death is shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem internal organ injury. He next submits that the co-accused Sachin Saroj, who has been assigned the role of stabbing, has been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 7.3.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2072 of 2025. Hence, the present applicant claims parity.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 23.11.2024. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the co-accused Sachin Saroj has already been granted bail; the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 23.11.2024; charge-sheet in the case has been filed and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the

¶12

applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Sudeep Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 236 of 2024, under Sections 126(2), 103, 309(6), 317(2), 352 of B.N.S., Police Station- Hathigawan, District- Pratapgarh, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of B.N.S.

¶21

Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Shravan

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sudeep Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudeep Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umer Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Dinesh Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Mo. Shakeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Mubeen @ Sameer vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Sudeep Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pintu Alias Sher Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko