Allowed

Sarvjeet Yadav Alias Sanjay Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2025BAIL/792/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Where an accused is not named in the FIR or in the informant's first statement, but his complicity surfaces for the first time through an application moved seven days after the incident, and the supporting witness statements are recorded after 31 and 43 days with no explanation of delay, false implication cannot be ruled out at the bail stage. Absent any criminal history, such an accused is entitled to release on bail, without expressing opinion on merits, subject to standard conditions including non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, with conditions to appear before trial court, not tamper with evidence, and refrain from criminal activity.

Sarvjeet Yadav Alias Sanjay Yadav vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10347

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 792 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sarvjeet Yadav Alias Sanjay Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Bhan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Manvendra Narayan Pathak, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Sury Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the Staterespondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0277 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 140(1), 191(2), 103(1), 238(A), 3(5) BNS, Police StationBarsathi, District- Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged on 07.10.2024 under Section 115(2), 140(1) BNS against two named accused persons (non applicant) and some unknown persons and according to FIR, on 06.10.2024 at about 9:00 p.m. in the late evening nominated accused persons along with their unknown associates abducted the son of the informant while he was standing at the shop.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 115(2), 140(1) BNS but subsequently when the dead body of the deceased was found by the informant in the mortuary then case was converted under section 103 BNS.

¶11

He further submitted that applicant was neither named in the FIR nor in his statement recorded during investigation informant disclosed his name but after seven days, he moved an application to the police and in the application, he disclosed the name of as many as 12 persons including applicant and, therefore, after seven days, through the application of informant name of applicant was

¶12

surfaced in the present matter. He further submitted that this fact clearly suggests that after seven days, on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter by the informant.

¶13

He further submitted that as per prosecution, during investigation, apart from the subsequent statement of the informant, statements of his another son, Puneet and witness Manmohan were also recorded and they also, however, stated that applicant along with others abducted the deceased but statement of Puneet was recorded after 31 days from the date of incident while statement of Manmohan was recorded after 43 days and no explanation of such delay has been given by the prosecution.

¶14

He further submitted that except the above evidences, there is no evidence against the applicant on record.

¶15

He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 10.12.2024.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA, however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18

From the record, it reflects that applicant was neither named in the FIR nor informant disclosed his name in his first statement recorded during investigation but it reflects that he disclosed his name along with several others through application, which was moved by him after seven days and thereafter when second statement of the informant was recorded then he reiterated the version of his application.

¶19

Record further suggests that after recording the second statement of the informant, I.O. also recorded the statements of witnesses Puneet, the son of the informant and Manmohan but it reflects that statement of Puneet was recorded after 31 days and statement of Manmohan was recorded after 43 days from the date of incident and except the above evidences, there is no other evidence against the applicant on the record.

¶20

Considering the fact that for the first time, complicity of applicant was revealed in the present matter through application moved by informant after 7 days and earlier neither in the FIR nor

¶21

in his first statement, informant disclosed the name of the applicant, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to his false implication, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

¶22

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 10.12.2024.

¶23

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶25

Let the applicant- Sarvjeet Yadav Alias Sanjay Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶27

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶30

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶31

Order Date :- 21.1.2025 KK Patel

¶32

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

Sarvjeet Yadav Alias Sanjay Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvjeet Yadav Alias Sanjay Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishesh Saini Alias Vishwas Alias Sundar vs State of U.P.

Omveer Singh vs State of U.P.

Mayank Bhushan Tripathi @ Ashok Kumar Tripathi vs State of U.P.

Nishant vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sanno @ Sanno and Another vs State of U.P.

Teeku Kushwah vs State of U.P.