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

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 17.10.2024 at about 10 pm, the son of the informant namely, Vivek Verma went to see Mela (fair) along with Deepak and Brijesh. On the way, the named accused persons, who were hiding in the dark, are alleged to have beaten the deceased with lathi, danda, bricks, kicks and fists. The said Deepak and Brijesh came home and informed about the incident. Then the informant went along with them to the place of occurrence where the son of the informant was found unconscious. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital where he has been declared dead.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. As per the statement of two eye-witnesses, general role of beating has been assigned to five accused persons who are named in the FIR. In the postmortem report, there are two ante-mortem injuries, out of which the injury no. 2 is on the vital part. Moreover, the cause of death is opined to be haemorrhagic shock due to ante-mortem injury. It is submitted that with regard to the injury no. 2 inflicted on the vital part as shown in the postmortem report, no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 19.10.2024. Charge-sheet in the case has been filed. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released

¶13

BAIL No. 1511 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

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.

¶17

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the post-mortem report so also the fact that as per the statement of the eyewitnesses, it is not clear as to who has been assigned the role of inflicting injury no. 2 to the deceased; the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 19.10.2024; 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 applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant -Shubham Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 196 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 191(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Munshiganj, District- Amethi, 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date

¶25

BAIL No. 1511 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶30

September 17, 2025 kkb/

¶31

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham 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

Pragyesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Aviation, Lko. and Another

Chand Kumar @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Mohd. Zeeshan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prn. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Udayraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko.

Mohd. Parvej Major B.C. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.