Anil Yadav vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47978

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10814 of 2025

Applicant :- Anil Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Maurya,Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Sitaram Yadav, learned Advocate apprised the Court that he is also one of the counsel for the applicant but his name is not shown in the cause list.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Sitaram Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Nigam, learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 140 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 352 B.N.S., Police Station Madanpur, District Deoria during pendency of the trial.

¶10

FIR of the present case was lodged on 24.09.2024 against applicant and three others and according to the FIR son of the informant was doing job in the house of co-accused Lal Babu Yadav and Lal Babu Yadav was not giving his dues and on 31.08.2024 informant received an information that after committing the murder of his brother, his dead body has been thrown in the field. It is further mentioned in the FIR that murder of his brother was committed by Lal Babu Yadav along with others including applicant.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, admittedly deceased died on 31.08.2024 and on same day information has been received by the informant but in spite of that he lodged FIR on 24.09.2024 i.e. after more than three weeks and this delay in lodging the FIR clearly suggests that it is based on false facts.

¶12

He further submits, during investigation, Investigating Officer

¶13

recorded the statement of two witnesses namely Lakshman Prasad Gaur and Jailal and both in their statements stated that applicant provided some poisonous substance to the deceased and from the viscera report it also reflects, deceased died due to consumption of insecticide but as statements of above noted witnesses were recorded quite belatedly, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such version.

¶14

He further submits, as informant had already disclosed the name of applicant in the FIR, therefore, on his instigation above noted witnesses started making allegation against the applicant. He further submits, there is no reliable evidence on record which can suggests that applicant is the person who administered poison to the deceased.

¶15

He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 14.01.2025.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18

However, from the record it reflects, applicant is named in the FIR but FIR of the present case was lodged after three weeks and no plausible explanation has been given in this regard.

¶19

Further, however, from the post mortem it reflects, cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained and his viscera was preserved and now viscera report is on record which suggests that he died due to consumption of insecticide and as per statements of witnesses Lakshman Prasad Gaur and Jailal it reflects, applicant was the person who provided some substance to him but considering the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after three weeks and applicant was named in the FIR, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant in this regard, cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage.

¶20

Further, except the statements of witnesses Lakshman Prasad Gaur and Jailal there is no evidence on record which can suggests that applicant administered any poison to the deceased.

¶21

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 14.01.2025.

¶22

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant - Anil Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶26

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶29

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶30

Order Date :- 4.4.2025 AK Pandey

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhotey Alias Badshah vs State of U.P.

Bhagat Singh vs State of U.P.

Balvinder Alias Mataru vs State of U.P.

Ankit Dixit vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dwarika Prasad Jha vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Shukla vs State of U.P.