Ashish Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55427

Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1044 of 2025

Appellant :- Ashish Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kamlesh Shrama Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Ashish Yadav with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 20.1.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mau and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.38 of 2024 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)va S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sarailakhansi, District Mau.

¶7

Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondent no.2 / informant.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶9

Injured brother of the informant was assaulted with a bat by 3 - 4 unknown persons when the boys were playing cricket. F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons and investigation started.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Present appellant is not named in the F.I.R. His name has not been taken by the informant as well in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version. It is also submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. The incident occurred in a heat of passion in a simple quarrel between some boys. It is further submitted that the Court below while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is further submitted that the

¶11

identically placed co-accused Laxman Gupta has been released on bail by this Court by allowing his appeal and setting-aside the impugned judgment and order in Criminal Appeal No.3166 of 2024 vide order dated 22.8.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 18.1.2025 having no criminal antecedent to his credit and as such he is entitled for bail by allowing the present appeal.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the present appeal and it has been vehemently argued that the injured sustained very serious injuries in this incident. It is further submitted that the skull bone of the injured was fractured, which was operated as per the statement of the doctor.

¶13

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶14

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the subsequent statement of the doctor, who treated the injured at Prakash Hospital, Mau, that after 2 - 3 days, the injured is likely to be discharged from the hospital and also keeping in view the incident which was occurred in a heat of passion and probably the intention to kill was not there and general role of assault has been assigned to three accused persons by the injured in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and no specific role has been attributed of any of the accused persons, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court cocerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶15

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶16

Let the appellant Ashish Yadav involved in case crime no.38 of 2024 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)va S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sarailakhansi, District Mau 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. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

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

¶21

(v) The appellant 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.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.4.2025 ss

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashish Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Sazim vs State of U.P. and Another

Samashuddin vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaushal Prajapati vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Bahadur Alias Fatte vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit vs State of U.P. and Another