Jugendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79614

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9800 of 2025

Applicant :- Jugendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Nigam, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 372 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 238 B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, nobody was named in the FIR but during investigation applicant has been made accused through the statement of co-accused Sultan and except the statement of co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶10

He further submits, however, as per allegation applicant had mobile conversation with co-accused but merely on this ground it cannot be said that applicant involved in the present crime.

¶11

He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 26.11.2024 i.e. for almost six months.

¶12

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

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶14

It is a case of circumstantial evidence and it appears, during investigation applicant has been made accused in the present matter through the statement of co-accused Sultan and except the statement of co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant, it appears, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶15

Further, however, as per allegation, applicant also had mobile conversation with co-accused but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that merely on this ground it cannot be inferred that applicant involved in the present matter along with co-accused.

¶16

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 26.11.2024 i.e. for almost six months

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Let the applicant - Jugendra 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail

¶25

application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶26

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 AK Pandey

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jugendra Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jugendra Yadav 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