Vipin Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

It is alleged that due to animosity between the applicant and the complainant’s family, a scuffle took place during a wedding ceremony, in which the applicant along with the co-accused allegedly assaulted the complainant and his family members.

¶13

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated. During investigation, the Investigating Officer found that co-accused Jai Shankar Yadav was not present at the spot, as he was serving in the Indian Army and was on duty in Punjab at the relevant time. Consequently, his name was dropped from the charge sheet, rendering the prosecution case doubtful. The prosecution version is further questionable because, although the FIR states that three out of four injured persons were admitted to the hospital for treatment, another injured person, Rachna, was subsequently introduced with six injuries and a fracture of the fibula bone.

¶14

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 03.11.2025. Co-accused Adarsh (a minor) has been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.04.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 883 of 2024. The offence is punishable up to seven years, and the applicant was not arrested during investigation.

¶15

BAIL No. 11234 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

It is further submitted that 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.

¶18

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, submitting that three persons have suffered fractures, though he does not dispute that the allegations are general in nature and the name of co-accused Jai Shankar Yadav was dropped by the Investigating Officer after finding the allegations in the FIR to be false.

¶19

Considering the fact that the name of co-accused Jai Shankar Yadav was dropped during investigation, the general nature of allegations, the anticipatory bail granted to co-accused Adarsh, coupled with the filing of the charge sheet and the applicant’s incarceration since 03.11.2025, I find it to be a fit case to grant bail to the applicant.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let the applicant Vipin Yadav , involved in FIR No. 207/2023, U/Ss. 323, 325, 308, 504, 506, 34.FPC, P.S. Chanda, District Sultanpur, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶22

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶23

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶24

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶25

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶26

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶27

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶28

November 18, 2025 R.C.

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjeev Agarwal Minor B.C. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rambihari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rustam Mishra @ Krishna Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Manju Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Tausheef Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Maskarool Ahamad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another