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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1451 of 2025

¶3

Santosh Yadav

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sukh Deo Singh, Anuj Kumar Singh, Dinesh Kumar Singh (D.K.Singh), Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajeev Kumar Dwivedi

¶6

Court No. - 15

¶7

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶8

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶9

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that cross cases were registered by both the sides. Four persons have been injured in this case and received simple injures. Jagdish Prasad has suffered seven injuries. Injuries 1 and 3 were kept under observation. Fractures in his fifth and ninth ribs were found. However, no opinion has been given by the doctor. General allegation has been made on all the accused persons.

¶10

The co-accused Arti, Manju and Antu have been granted interim protection vide order contained in Annexure No.5. Another co-accused Indrapal Yadav has also been granted bail by the court below vide order dated 19.8.2025. The applicant seeks parity. The applicant is in jail since 4.1.2025.

¶11

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

4. Learned A.G.A. and complainant's counsel opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel

¶13

BAIL No. 1451 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

for the applicant.

¶16

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, general role has been assigned on all the accused persons, no specific allegation has been made on the present applicant, charge sheet has been filed, bail order of the co-accused Indrapal Yadav, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail, on parity.

¶17

6. Let the applicant Santosh Yadav, involved in Case Crime No.394 of 2024 under sections 109, 3(5), 117(2), 118(1) BNS, P.s. Chanda, district Sultanpur 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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 under Section 229-A I.P.C. (now 269 BNS)

¶23

(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now

¶24

BAIL No. 1451 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

84 BNSS) 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 174-A I.P.C. (now 209 BNS).

¶27

7. The application is allowed accordingly, on the ground of parity.

¶28

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

¶29

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶30

October 29, 2025

¶31

kkb/

¶32

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh 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

Vijay Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Munna @ Shoaib @ Mohammad Shoaib Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ram Janki Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Hari Ram Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Ashok Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Farki Roka Magar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.