Ram Tej Yadav Alias Rinku Yadav vs State of U.P through Principal Secretary Home

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.477 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)(A) BNS (302, 34, 120B IPC) Police StationSidhauli, District-Sitapur.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. He further submits that the name of the applicant involved during course of investigation. It is further submitted that the co-accused Sainki Mishra having identical role has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 01.06.2026 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.2540 of 2026. There is no possibility of tampering of any evidence or witnesses. The applicant is in jail since 21.04.2026 and he has criminal history of three cases which has been mentioned in para-19 to the bail

¶15

BAIL No. 4229 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

application. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but he does not dispute the fact that the role of the applicant is identical to Sainki Mishra who has already been enlarged on bail.

¶19

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of FIR as well as other relevant documents, including the fact that the role of the applicant is identical to Sainki Mishra who has already been enlarged on bail, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

The bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Ram Tej Yadav @ Rinku Yadav , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶22

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶23

(ii) 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.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under

¶26

BAIL No. 4229 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶29

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A I.P.C./209 B.N.S.

¶30

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶31

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

¶32

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶33

June 9, 2026 Harshita

¶34

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

Ram Tej Yadav Alias Rinku Yadav v. State of U.P through Principal Secretary Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Tej Yadav Alias Rinku Yadav v. State of U.P through Principal Secretary Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taufiq Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajit Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rinku @ Rahul @ Haiden vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shubham Shukla @ Dhoni Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Suraj Raidas vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.