Yuvraj Mishra vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39454 of 2025

Yuvraj Mishra

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Dileep Kumar Pandey, Sakshi Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Yuvraj Mishra with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 293 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 309(4), 115(2), 351(3), 352, 3(5) of BNS, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj during pendency of trial.

¶9

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 was surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. He further submits that a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution against the applicant, whereas applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that no specific and separate role of causing injury has been assigned to the accused applicant by the injured. He further submits that co-accused Raj Pandey having similar role to that of accused applicant has already been enlarged by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40054 of 2025. He further submits that criminal history of three cases against the applicant has been explained in para no. 3 and 4 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He further submits that trial is not likely to be

¶10

BAIL No. 39454 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

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 16.09.2025.

¶13

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 investigation in the instant matter is going on and in case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, he conceded the fact that no specific and separate role has been assigned to the applicant.

¶14

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 the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 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 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 are present in Court.

¶17

BAIL No. 39454 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶20

(iv) 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 of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶21

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly in accordance with law.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶25

November 19, 2025 Bhanu

¶26

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yuvraj Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvraj Mishra 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

Vishwanath Yadav vs State of U.P.

Sheebu vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Gupta vs State of U.P.

Reza vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Verma vs State of U.P.