Pankaj Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 170 of 2025, under sections 103 (2) and 3 (5) of the BNS (old Section 34 IPC), Police Station Maharajganj, District- Raebareli is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶14

The brief facts of the case are that on 16.07.2025, an FIR has been lodged under Section 103 (1) of BNS, 2023 against one named accused person and his friends alleging therein that named accused person is known to informant's only son and on 27.06.2025, the named accused person accompanied the deceased while he was going to site around 4 PM and in morning around 4.30 AM, she received a phone call from named accused person that her son is vomiting with blood and when she reached at Ratapur cross-road where she found her son is lying in back seat of vehicle only in underwear and she has full belief that due to some dispute relating to transaction of money, named accused person alongwith his friends killed her son.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that FIR has been lodged with an unexplained delay of 18 days. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of applicant for the first time surfaced in the statement of named accused person recorded under Section 180 BNSS, 2023.

¶16

It is further submitted that even from the statement of named accused person, nothing has come out against the applicant for the reason while taking name of the applicant, named accused has submitted that they reached the tubewell of applicant, started drinking liquor, they left tubewell and deceased stayed in the house of named

¶17

BAIL No. 2849 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

accused person where his condition deteriorated so the applicant is not at all involved in any manner even from the statement of named co-accused person. There is no evidence/material found against the applicant during investigation by Police.

¶20

It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of four cases. In three cases, the applicant is on bail and in one case, chargesheet has been filed, but summons has not been served upon the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 22.01.2026.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the co-accused persons namely Ajay Pratap Singh and Sashikesh, whose names also surfaced for the first time in the confessional statement of the named co-accused Dileep Yadav, have already been granted bail by this court vide orders dated 14.05.2026 and 18.05.2026 in Criminal Misc Bail Application Nos. 3489 of 2026 and 3535 of 2026, hence, the applicant is entitled for parity of the same.

¶22

On the other hand, learned A.G.A, on the basis of instructions received, has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he is unable to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and has submitted that another co-accused has also taken the name of the applicant that he brought a bottle of alcohol from his room but that does not make any offence against the applicant under Section 103 (1) of BNS, 2023. He also could not dispute the fact that above named co-accused persons have already been granted bail.

¶23

Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has submitted that the informant did not know the names of the unknown persons at the time of the incident and now she has come to know about the names of those persons, but it does not make much difference in the present case for the reason that the names were taken by the co-accused on the basis of which the informant had taken the names of these persons, so the names which have come into the knowledge of the informant on the basis of the confessional statement of the named accused persons are same, so the position remains the same. He further submitted that except that, no other evidence or material has been found against the applicant.

¶24

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, prima-facie , it appears that applicant is not named in the FIR; FIR has been lodged with an unexplained delay of 18 days, prima-facie, it appears that name of applicant has surfaced for the first time in the statement of co-accused Dilip Yadav (named accused person) and the confessional statement of one another co-accused except that no evidence/material is found against the applicant during investigation by the Police and from the statement of named accused, as discussed above, no offence prima-facie, under Section 103 (1) BNS, 2023 is made out against the applicant; as also the fact that co-accused persons namely Ajay Pratap Singh and Sashikesh have already been granted bail, thus, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail on

¶25

BAIL No. 2849 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

the ground of parity.

¶28

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶29

Let the applicant- Pankaj Kumar Yadav 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:-

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶34

(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.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

(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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

May 27, 2026 DiVYa

¶41

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶42

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

Pankaj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief 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

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

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

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

Juvenile Xyz (Minor) Thru. His Mother and Natural Guardian vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Santram Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sachin vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.