Ranvijay Yadav Alias Mulayam Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35211 of 2025

Ranvijay Yadav Alias Mulayam

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 70

¶5

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Ranvijay Yadav @ Mulayam with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 359 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Khajni, District Gorakhpur during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., his name came into light during the course of investigation. He further submits that a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that though applicant is not named in the F.I.R. alongwith co-accused Aman Yadav and Pankaj Kumar, but applicant is not the actual beneficiary. He further submits that as per the allegation contained in F.I.R., informant gave money to the accused applicant in order to provide job in the foreign country. He further submits that Account no. 40595514135 mentioned in the F.I.R. does not belong to the accused applicant, whereas, the same is belonging to Esther Kumar and Account no. 14482413000590 is belonging to Rinku Yadav. He further submits that criminal history of applicant has been explained in para 16 and 17 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and in all the cases, either final report has been submitted or applicant has been enlarged on

¶9

BAIL No. 35211 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

bail. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant is languishing in jail since 18.08.2025.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. He further contended that approximately Rs. 4,30,000/- was taken by the accused applicant and other co-accused persons in lieu of providing job in the foreign country and the amount alleged in the F.I.R. was sent in different account, which was fraudulently opened by the accused applicant. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is allowed.

¶14

Considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5- 6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(ii) 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

¶17

BAIL No. 35211 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

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.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶21

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail 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./209. B.N.S.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23