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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43434

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3460 of 2025

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Dharmendra Kumar Gupta

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 6.1.2025 at about 9.30 am, 12 named and 8 others armed with lathi-danda as well as sharp edged weapons started beating the complainant and the other injured. In the alleged incident, Ram Chhabile has suffered fracture in his ulna bone. It is also alleged that Ram Dulare has also been beaten, due to which his right leg has got fractured.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. Except the injured Ram Chhabile who has suffered fracture in his forearm, no other injured has suffered any grievous injuries. There is no specific allegation upon the applicant. As per injury report of the injured persons, the injuries are not on vital part and are simple in nature except one injury i.e., injury no. 2 of Ram Chhabile.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 18.1.2025. Charge-sheet in the case has been filed. 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.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the injury reports of the injured so also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 18.1.2025; 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.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Raj Kumar Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 4 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 190, 351(3), 333, 324(4), 109(1), 110, 117(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Udaipur, District- Pratapgarh, 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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 in accordance with law.

¶20

(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.

¶21

Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Shravan

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar 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

Junaid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Himanshu Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Harikesh Pandey @ Harikesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Jagdish Mahawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

U.O.I. Thru Superintendent Customs Commissionerate (Prev.) U.P. /Uttrakhand (Minor B/C) Vs Mohd. Azimuddin S/O Moinuddin