Allowed

Ambuj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2025BAIL/852/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail for the applicant in a case registered under Section 302 IPC. The court noted that the applicant was implicated solely on the basis of a mukhbir's information, there were no eye witnesses, and the informant's statement had already been recorded by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the applicant on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or pressurize witnesses.

Ambuj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22836

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 852 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ambuj Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ravindra Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, the learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0322/2021, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Kadipur, District Sultanpur.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 03.07.2021 stating that while the informant's son was returning after doing labour work, at about 08:00 p.m. on 27.06.2021 along with another labour, some persons started assaulting him with sticks near a culvert in Village Khalispur. When the miscreants tried to run away, the informant's son chased them. When he reached near village Umri, unknown miscreants shot at him who was taken to CHC, Akhand Nagar, from where he was referred to District Hospital and then to Trauma Centre, Lucknow where he died during treatment on 01.07.2021 at 06:54 Hours.

¶9

The post mortem examination report of the deceased mentions the cause of death to be septicemia due to ante mortem injuries.

¶10

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161

¶11

Cr.P.C., he stated that his son was returning after doing labour work along with seven other persons, all of whom were coming home together. When they reached near Khalispur culvert, one of the persons Ram Bachan went away to drop Ayodhya in his village Malikpur. Thereafter the informant's son Rakesh asked the other persons to go on foot towards their home and he would come with Ram Bachan after dropping Ayodhya. When his son proceeded on his motorcycle, an altercation took place with two persons riding a bullet motorcycle whereafter both the persons riding the bullet motorcycle ran away towards village Akahand Nagar. The informant's son chased them and he was shot at by two persons riding bullet motor cycle in village Umri due to which he died. The informant further stated that he was not present at the time of the incident and he had given the statement as per information given to him by Ram Bachan.

¶12

Ram Bachan stated that eight persons were coming on two motorcycles. When they reached Mundila Bazar, Rakesh asked him to drop his brother-in-law whereupon Ram Bachan went away with his brother-in-law Ayodhya. When they stopped midway to get pan masala, Rakesh overtook them speedily and went towards Akhand Nagar. He narrowly escaped hitting two persons riding a motorcycle thereafter altercation took place between those two persons Ram Bachan and his brother-in-law Ayodhya reached Malikpur Nonra Gate. A 12 wheeler truck was parked there and the truck driver told that there was a person riding motorcycle and two persons riding bullet motorcycle and an altercation had taken place between them. The two persons riding the bullet motorcycle had ran away towards Akahand Nagar and the person riding the other motorcycle had chased him. After some distance, Ram Bachan met two persons sitting on a culvert and they told that a bullet motorcyle had went away speedily. Two persons were riding the bullet motorcycle and

¶13

another person was chasing them on a motorcycle. Thereafter Algoo alias Ram Prakash told him that someone had shot at Rakesh.

¶14

In the additional statement of the informant, he stated that he came to know that the applicant and Deepak Tiwari were riding the bullet motorcycle. The applicant was driving the motorcycle and Deepak Tiwari was sitting on the pillion seat and Deepak Tiwari had shot at his son.

¶15

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in 20 other criminal cases has been disclosed in para 20 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application in which the applicant has been enlarged on bail.

¶16

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation and a copy of the charge sheet.

¶17

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith copies of the statement of PW1 recorded by the trial court. Wherein the informant stated that he had not witnessed the incident and the police had informed him that the applicant and Deepak had shot at his son.

¶18

Another supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith the relevant extract of case diary which shows that the applicant has been made an accused on the basis of information given by a mukhbir.

¶19

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that there is no witness of the incident and the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of information received from a mukhbir; that statement of the informant has already been recorded by the trial court and

¶20

he has also stated that the police had informed him about involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence; that there is no eye witness of the incident and statement of the informant has already been recorded and in case of release of the applicant on bail, the applicant will not be in a position to influence the witnesses, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶21

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant - Ambuj Yadav be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶23

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶24

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶25

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶26

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶27

Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Pradeep/-

¶28

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ambuj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambuj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

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

Rahul Rastogi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Mangesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Anarkali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Anarkali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another