Harsh Yadav @ Ishu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8225

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 711 of 2025

Applicant :- Harsh Yadav @ Ishu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Avanish Shukla,Prashant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR No. 285 of 2024, under Sections 3(5) and 109 of BNS and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Talkatora, District Lucknow.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that though the applicant is assigned the role of firing but no one is injured. He submits that the incident took place due to anonymity between the parties and false and concocted story is narrated in the First Information Report and the applicant is implicated in the matter and the role of firing is attributed to him. He next submits that there no independent public eye witness of the incident. Further submission is that the applicant has 4 cases criminal history which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit and the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.12.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings, therefore, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is involved in committing the offence, as there are ample evidences against him and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is assigned the role of firing but no one is injured; applicant has 4 cases criminal history which has been explained; ther is no independent public eye witness of the incident and the applicant

¶12

is languishing in jail since 28.12.2024 and he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Harsh Yadav @ Ishu Yadav involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶15

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶16

(2) 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. He 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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶17

(3) 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.; and

¶18

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly

¶21

confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 kkv/

¶23

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

Harsh Yadav @ Ishu Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsh Yadav @ Ishu 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

Heera Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko.

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

Ram Kishor @ Pujari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secretariat U.P. Lko. and Another

Vedram and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Harsh Yadav @ Ishu Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Vinay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.