Shubham Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Addl. Chief Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28355 Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3784 of 2025

Applicant :- Shubham Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Addl. Chief Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Chaudhary,Amit Chaudhary,Anand Kumar Yadav,Utkarsh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amit Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajeev Kumar Verma, learned AGA-I for the Sttae, Sri Anand Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the informant and perused the records.

¶6

Sri Anand Kumar Yadav has filed a counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 269/2024, under Sections 191(2),191(3), 190, 103(1),61(2), 3(5) B.N.S. & 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Baldi Rai, District Sultanpur.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 09.10.2024 against five named persons, not including the applicants, stating that while the informant's cousin aged 30 years was going to attend the call of nature at 04:30 a.m., the accused persons shot at him with a country made pistol and thereafter they ran away on their motorcycles. Some women ran towards the village shouting that the deceased had been shot at. When the informant and several other villagers reached

¶9

the spot, they found his cousin dead and his body was blood soaked.

¶10

The post mortem examination report mentions two gun shot entry wounds, one exit wound and cause of death has been opined to be hemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem firearm injury.

¶11

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., he reiterated the FIR version. However, in his additional statement, he stated that the applicants and two other persons were riding the motorcycle and the person sitting on the pillion seat had shot at the deceased and their names should also be added. He stated that he had mentioned the applicants' name in the bite given to media. However, the informant did not state as to how did he come to know about the deceased having been shot at by the applicants and two other persons.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicants are innocent, they have has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants' involvement in two other criminal cases has been disclosed in para 21 of the bail application in which they have already been granted bail. Their involvement in three other cases has been disclosed by filing a supplementary affidavit and he has been granted bail in those cases also.

¶13

The Investigating Officer has recorded that the applicant and two other persons were seen riding a motorcycle in the CCTV camera installed at a toll plaza at Haidergarh, District Barabanki at 09:05:36 on 09.10.2024. The applicant was sitting in the middle on the motorcycle.

¶14

The incident has taken place in district Sultanpur.

¶15

In the counter affidavit filed by the informant it has been stated that the CCTV footage of customer Service Centre of Bank of Baroda near Saini trisection was examined and it was seen that the applicant, co-accused Sachin Yadav and Aniket Tiwari had passed from there at 02:54:36 on 09.10.2024.

¶16

Learned AGA-I has submitted that a pistol has been recovered from an open place from amongst some bushes on the pointing out of the applicants and coaccused Aniket Tiwari. He further submitted that allegations have been established during investigation and a charge sheet has been submitted on 06.01.2025.

¶17

Two co-accused persons Arjun Yadav and Atul Yadav have already been granted bail by means of orders dated 04.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 35/2025 and 1653/2025 respectively. Yet another coaccused Lucky Yadav has also been granted bail by means of an order dated 20.03.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2224/2025.

¶18

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicants have not been named in the FIR or in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., he has been named in the additional statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., although the applicants are said to have been seen in CCTV of the camera installed at a toll plaza in District Sultanpur and in a customer service centre of Bank of Baroda, none of the persons seen in the CCTV

¶19

footage is seen carrying any weapon; although a pistol is said to have been recovered on the pointing out of the applicants and co-accused Aniket Tiwari, the recovery has been made from amongst same bushes at an open place and the recovery has not been witnessed by any independent witness and that three co-accused persons have already been granted bail and coupled with the fact that the applicants no. 1 & 2 are languishing in jail since 16.10.2024 and 23.10.2024 respectively whereas investigation already stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶20

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶21

Let the applicants - Shubham Yadav & Aniket Tiwari @ Monu Pandit be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶22

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶23

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶24

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶25

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Pradeep/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shubham Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Addl. Chief Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Addl. Chief Home Lko.

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

Mannu @ Manuva Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Ji and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sani Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Smt.Vimla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 10 Others

Meera Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Asif Naseem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another