Mukesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8303 of 2024

Mukesh Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Archana Rawat, Rahul Kumar Kaushal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 12

¶9

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶10

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶11

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

¶12

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the brother of the informant worked as a labourer in the under construction house of Sachin Awasthi. On 30.1.2024, the informant came to know about the murder of his brother Ramu Pandey who told him one day that he got some money for the painting work and he wanted to purchase a cow. However, the accused-applicant was quarreling with him due to money transaction. It is suspected that the accused-applicant has committed the murder of the deceased by strangulating him.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The complainant is the sole fact witness of this case, who has been examined before the trial court as PW-1 and during cross-examination, he has not supported the prosecution case. Thus, there is no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence. He submits that as per post-mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. The case is of circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstance does not appear to be complete.

¶14

It is further submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal history in

¶15

BAIL No. 8303 of 2024

¶16

2

¶17

para no. 14 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 3.2.2024 There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the post-mortem report so also the fact that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of four days; the case is of circumstantial evidence; the chain of circumstance does not appear to be complete; the sole fact witness PW-1 i.e., the complainant has not supported the prosecution case during crossexamination; there appears to be no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence coupled with the fact that the applicant has duly explained the criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 3.2.2024 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Mukesh Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 952 of 2024, under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Barabanki, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶23

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

(iii) The applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

(iv) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the

¶26

BAIL No. 8303 of 2024

¶27

3

¶28

trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶29

(v) The applicant 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 in accordance with law.

¶30

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of B.N.S.

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

September 11, 2025 Shravan

¶33

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

Mukesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Govt. 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

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

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Akash Rathour vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Munesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 3 Others

Pucchi Alias Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others