Pradeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pradeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of applicant Pradeep Yadav on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence, not pressurizing/intimidating prosecution witnesses, and appearance before the trial court on fixed dates.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Pradeep Yadav, charged in Case Crime No. 208 of 2025 (Police Station Ghosi, District Mau) under Sections 124(1), 61(2), 351(2) and 352 BNS, is entitled to release on bail during the pendency of trial on the ground of parity with the similarly placed co-accused Manoj Yadav already enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail on the ground of parity, and allowed the bail application on the ground of parity.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Pradeep Yadav was ordered released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: he shall not tamper with evidence, shall not pressurize/intimidate prosecution witnesses, shall appear before the trial court on dates fixed; identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties to be verified before bonds are accepted.

Key takeaways

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move a bail cancellation application before this Court.obiter¶17
Observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 65; Justice Krishan Pahal; Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:134811), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18404 of 2025, Pradeep Yadav v. State of U.P., order dated 8.8.2025. Applicant sought bail in Case Crime No. 208 of 2025, Police Station Ghosi, District Mau, under Sections 124(1), 61(2), 351(2) and 352 BNS, during the pendency of trial. Counsel argued parity: similarly placed co-accused Manoj Yadav had been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court vide order dated 07.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20717 of 2025; the applicant, languishing in jail since 02.05.2025, had no criminal history. The prayer was opposed by the A.G.A., but the parity and no-criminal-history aspects were not disputed by him. Taking into consideration Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, CBI (MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, Supreme Court), Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P. (1993 Cri.L.J. 938, this Court) and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, Supreme Court), and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found the applicant had made out a case for bail on the ground of parity and allowed the application. Release directed on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence; no pressurizing/intimidating prosecution witnesses; appearance before trial court on fixed dates); breach permits prosecution to seek cancellation; observations expressly stated not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134811

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18404 of 2025

Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lal Behari Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Heard Shri Lal Behari Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Pranshu Kumar, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 208 of 2025, under Sections 124(1), 61(2), 351(2), 352 BNS, Police Station-Ghosi, District-Mau, during the pendency of trial.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Manoj Yadav has already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20717 of 2025. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.05.2025, having no criminal history. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the coaccused and of no criminal history of the applicant, have not been disputed by him.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and also taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993

Cri.L.J. 938 coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 , and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of parity. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

Let the applicant- Pradeep Yadav involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

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

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses.

Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Karan

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad