Allowed¶19

Shivam Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 May 2026BAIL/38407/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38407 of 2024, Shivam Yadav v. State of U.P., decided May 12, 2026 by Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J. Bail granted under Section 483 BNSS in Case Crime No. 555 of 2024, Sections 191(2), 115(2), 333, 110, 105 BNS, P.S. Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur; deceased Saraswati Devi died of ante-mortem head injury 8 days after assault; no specific role assigned to applicant per FIR; custody since 06.09.2024; personal bond Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; conditions under Section 351 BNSS; no expression on merits.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Shivam Yadav on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conduct and appearance conditions; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail. ¶19

Shivam Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Shivam Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 555 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 333, 110, 105 of B.N.S., P.S. Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur, should be released on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶12

Court's answer

On considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the court found it a fit case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: no inducement/threat/promise or tampering with evidence, no pressurising or intimidating prosecution witnesses, personal presence before the trial court on fixed dates including recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., and an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present.

¶19

Key takeaways

Anything said in the order is limited to determination of the bail application and is not an expression on the merits; the trial court is absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the evidence unaffected by anything said in the order.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 allowed (Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.). Applicant Shivam Yadav, arraigned in Case Crime No. 555 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 333, 110, 105 of B.N.S., P.S. Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur, concerning the assault on deceased Saraswati Devi by iron rod, lathi, brick and stones resulting in one grievous ante-mortem head injury with death after 8 days, was ordered released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount. It was pointed out that no specific role was assigned to the applicant as per the FIR (three named and two unknown assailants), that he was in jail since 06.09.2024, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude early given heavy pendency. Conditions imposed included no inducement or tampering, no intimidation of prosecution witnesses, presence before the trial court on fixed dates including for statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., and an undertaking against seeking adjournments; breach to be a ground for cancellation. Observations expressly confined to the bail determination, with no expression on merits and the trial court left free to reach independent conclusions.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38407 of 2024

Shivam Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Prem Prakash Yadav, Roopesh Srivastava, Sanjeev Kumar Yadav,
	Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Vinay Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Sandeep Kumar Chaturvedi

¶8

Court No. - 69

¶9

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶10

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

¶11

Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sandeep Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the first informant and Shri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶12

The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.555 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 333, 110, 105 of B.N.S., registered at Police Station Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur, during pendency of the trial.

¶13

It has been submitted by learned Senior counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant and as per first information report, three named and two unknown persons are said to have assaulted the deceased Saraswati Devi by iron rod, lathi, brick and stones, as a result of which, one grievous injury has been received on the parietal region of the deceased and the deceased has died after 8 days of the incident. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.09.2024 and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶14

BAIL No. 38407 of 2024

¶15

¶16

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and it has been submitted by them that the deceased has received grievous injury.

¶17

No specific role has been assigned to the applicant and as per first information report, three named and two unknown persons are said to have assaulted the deceased Saraswati Devi by iron rod, lathi, brick and stones, as a result of which, one grievous injury has been received on the parietal region of the deceased and the deceased has died after 8 days of the incident and as per postmortem report, the cause of death has been shown due to ante-mortem injury (head injury). It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.09.2024 and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and the applicant is having o criminal history.

¶18

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant- Shivam Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned :-

¶20

(i) 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.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶24

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

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶26

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of

¶27

BAIL No. 38407 of 2024

¶28

¶29

determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶30

May 12, 2026 RKM

¶31

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivam Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam 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

Similar cases

Amit Singh vs State of U.P.

Niranjan Singh vs State of U.P.

Bheema Ram vs State of U.P.

Mohd Bilal vs State of U.P.

Vikas Kharwar Vs State of U.P.

Byas Muni Yadav Vs State of U.P.