Pankaj Giri vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Heard Sri Faizan Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Paraspar Swagat, learned counsel, holding brief of Sri Arpan Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant.

¶11

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 235 of 2025, under sections 103 (1), 3 (5), 61 (2) of the B.N.S. (old sections 302, 120-B and 34 of IPC) Police Station Jaitpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶12

Brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 06.11.2025 has been lodged under Section 103 (1) of BNS, 2023 (old Section 302 IPC) against four named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that on 06.11.2025 son of informant was called at Ahraula bypass and when he reached there at a tea stall, the present applicant and co-accused person namely Avnish @ Avinash Yadav were already present there. The opposite parties sat on motorcycle of son of deceased and took him to some inter college where Kali Prasad and Ram Singh had killed his son.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the story in FIR that son of informant received a phone call but who had called him has not been disclosed and when he reached at Ahraula bypass, the applicant alongwith another co-accused person were there and they sat on motorcycle of son of the informant meaning thereby that there is no such allegation that the applicant forcibly took her son on his motorcycle to some inter college.

¶14

It is further submitted that there is no eyewitness to the said story that at tea stall in Ahraula bypass, applicant was present.

¶15

It is further submitted that there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident.

¶16

It is further submitted that charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant by assigning a role of catching hold as per confessional statement of the co-

¶17

BAIL No. 1504 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

accused namely Avnish @ Avinash Yadav and except that there is no evidence found by Police during investigation.

¶20

It is further submitted that main accused persons namely Kali Prasad Jaiswal and Ram Singh, against whom the allegation of killing the son of informant, in FIR as well as in the statement of informant, have been granted ad-interim anticipatory bail vide order of this Court dated 17.03.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sections 482 BNSS Nos. 468 of 2026 and 472 of 2026 respectively, mainly on the ground that gun used has been recovered on the pointing out of co-accused Pradeep Yadav and Satyendra Yadav.

¶21

It is further submitted that the co-accused namely Avnish @ Avinash Yadav has approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 666 of 2026 in which an order has been passed on 29.04.2026 granting him bail. Copy of the bail order has been produced during course of argument, which is taken on record. The evidence/allegation against the co-accused namely Avnish @ Avinash Yadav and against the present applicant is almost the same. Hence, the applicant is entitled for parity of bail.

¶22

It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 18.12.2025.

¶23

On the other hand, Learned Additional Government Advocate on the basis of instructions received and Sri Paraspar Swagat, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Arpan Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant but are unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant for grant of parity of bail order passed in favour of the co-accused Avnish @ Avinash Yadav.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, prima-facie, it is found that except the confessional statement of the applicant and confessional statement of co-accused Avnish @ Avinash Yadav, there is no any other evidence found against the applicant; recovery of gun used in the crime has been recovered on pointing out of coaccused Pradeep Yadav and Satyendra Yadav; applicant is in jail since 18.12.2025; co-accused namely Avnish @ Avinash Yadav, having same allegation and evidence to that of the applicant has already been granted bail by this Court; hence, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶26

Let the applicant Pankaj Giri be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶27

BAIL No. 1504 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶33

(v) 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.

¶34

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶35

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶36

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶37

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶38

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶39

May 6, 2026 Nitesh

¶40

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶41

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

Pankaj Giri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Giri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Mahesh Nishad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sushil Kumar Yadav @ Sushil vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Madan Lal vs Ranvir Prasad Addl. Chief Secy. Consumer Protection Weight Measurement Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Bhudev Singh vs Shri Amit Agrawal (Ias) and 2 others

Sunita Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Tejendra Singh and 20 Others vs Shri Shubham Shukla Bsa/Distt. Basic Education Officer Balrampur U.P.