Yogesh Sharma vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51139

Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7324 of 2025

Applicant :- Yogesh Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard leaned counsel for the applicant-accused, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused in Case Crime No. 542/2021, (S.T. No. 156 of 2022), under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC, Police StationSarailakhansi, District- Mau with the prayer to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail.

¶8

The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2024, which is reproduced as under :-

¶9

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶10

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 542/2021, (S.T. No. 156 of 2022), under Section 302, 201, 120-B IPC, police station Sarailakhansi, District Mau with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶11

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation that deceased was taken away by the applicant on 28.10.2021 from his home, is wholly false. The dead body of deceased was recovered on 30.10.2021 and before that a missing report was lodged but in the missing report there was no such allegation that deceased was taken away by the applicant. There is no eye witness of alleged incident. It was submitted that alleged 'last seen' evidence shown against the applicant is wholly false and there is no independent witness to support the same. Similarly, the recovery of an axe and blood-stained clothes shown at the instance of applicant is also false and there is no independent witness of alleged recovery. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 05.11.2021, having no criminal history, and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that there is evidence that deceased was taken away by applicant on his motorcycle on 28.10.2021 and thereafter his dead body was recovered on 30.10.2021 from a well. There is evidence that deceased was 'last seen' with the applicant and in this connection statement of one Baliram Dubey was referred. Recovery of an axe used in the incident as well as blood-stained clothes were also recovered at the instance of the applicant.

¶13

Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, gravity of the offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the matter, no case for grant of bail is made out.

¶14

Accordingly, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant Yogesh Sharma is rejected, at this stage."

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye-witness of alleged incident. As per prosecution version, the deceased was taken away by applicant on 28.10.2021 from his home but after that no report was lodged. The dead body of the deceased was recovered on 30.10.2021 and after that First Information Report was lodged. The alleged last seen evidence shown against the applicant is highly doubtful. The applicant has no motive to commit murder of deceased. During investigation, a false version was developed that the deceased was having some relationship with cousin of applicant. The alleged recovery of axe and blood-stained clothes is false and there is independent witness of alleged recovery. It is further submitted that first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2024 and after that all the material witnesses have been examined before the trial court and thus, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. The applicant is in jail since 05.11.2021 and thus, he has already undergone the detention of about three and a half years and trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time. Lastly, it was stated that the applicant has no criminal history and in case the applicant is granted bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of applicant has already been rejected on merits. There is evidence that deceased was taken away from

¶17

his home by applicant. This fact is also supported by CCTV footage of the house of deceased, wherein it was shown that deceased was taken away by the applicant.

¶18

I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

Perusal of record shows that there is no eye-witness of alleged incident. As per prosecution version, deceased was taken away by the applicant on 28.10.2021 and after that his dead body was found on 30.10.2021. All the material witnesses have been examined before the trial court. The applicant has already undergone detention of about three and a half years and it appears that trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time.

¶20

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, period of detention, stage of trial and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant-accused - Yogesh Sharma involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶22

(i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶23

(ii) The applicant-accused shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

(iii) The applicant-accused shall appear before the trial court on the

¶25

date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶26

(iv) The applicant-accused shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶27

(v) The applicant-accused 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant-accused in accordance with law.

¶29

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Rama Kant

¶30

Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yogesh Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Neyaz Ahmad and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Priyanka Rajbhar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kedar vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Khushnuma and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others