Shiv Shankar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant Ms. Astha Singh, who has filed rejoinder affidavit which is taken on record, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶11

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report has been registered with delay of three days. Due to litigation on civil side between the parties, entire family including the applicant has been made accused in this case. The co-accused Ram Jiyawan has been granted bail by the Sessions Court. The applicant has explained previous criminal history of one case in the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 14.10.2025.

¶12

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has explained criminal history, bail order of the co-accused, referred to above, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties,

¶15

BAIL No. 655 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶18

6. Let the applicant Shiv Shankar Yadav, involved in Case Crime No.139 of 2025 under sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 333, 109(1) BNS, P.S. Raniganj, district Pratapgarh 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(iii) 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 court and he shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial 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.

¶22

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/court concerned may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶23

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶24

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the trial.

¶25

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

¶26

April 13, 2026 kkb/

¶27

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Shankar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Shankar Yadav 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

Mukesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Raju vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shyamu Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mo. Shameem vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Ashutosh Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neeraj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another