Rama Shankar Yadav vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133646

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25929 of 2025

Applicant :- Rama Shankar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Prakash Pandey,Umesh Chandra Tiwari

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶7

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Umesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 03 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85 of BNS and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Manda, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶11

Learned counsel has further stated that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased person. The cause of death has been found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging.

¶12

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed much reliance upon the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar, 2022(6) SCC 599 , whereby it has been categorically stated that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant lives separately in the house opposite to the house of husband of the informant.

¶15

The well-known principle of " Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty, " gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

¶16

A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 .

¶17

Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 , has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that " bail is a rule and jail is an exception ".

¶18

The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India , reported in (2024) 10 SCC 574 , held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statute like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶20

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the

¶21

shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the delay in institution of the FIR coupled by the fact that there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶23

Let the applicant- Rama Shankar Yadav , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶24

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶25

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

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶27

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 based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶28

Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Sumit S

¶29

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rama Shankar Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Shankar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mateen vs State of U.P.

Bala vs State of U.P.

Rahees vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Home Secretary, Lucknow

Faizan vs State of U.P.

Avnish vs State of U.P.

Vijay vs State of U.P. and 3 Others