Arvind Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7661 of 2025

Arvind Kumar Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

¶6

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharmendra Kumar, Eshan Garg, Prachi Arya, Vivek Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ashok Kumar Singh

¶7

Court No. - 23

¶8

HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶10

On 11.3.2026, an order was passed by this Court in connected case i.e. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.7340 of 2025, which reads as under :-

¶11

"1. Learned counsel for the applicant is present whereas learned counsel for the complainant is not present.

¶12

2. As per the proposal of Oudh Bar Association for not passing any adverse order, the matter is adjourned.

¶13

3. List this case on 16.3.2026, peremptorily. No further adjournment shall be accepted on behalf of either parties on the next date."

¶14

3 Today again, none appears on behalf of respondent no.2/complainant nor any request for adjournment has been made.

¶15

In the aforesaid circumstances, this court proceed to dispose of the present bail application.

¶16

This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No.0168 of 2025, Under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S., Police Station Kursi, District Barabanki.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged with delay of one day. The medical report does not support the

¶18

BAIL No. 7661 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

prosecution story. As per injury report of complainant Gyanendra, all the seven injuries were found simple in nature except injury no.6 which was kept under observation but it has not been specified as regard nature of the injury. As per injury report of injured Vipin Singh, all the five injuries except injury on.3 are simple in nature. Injury no.3 was kept under observation but it has not been specified as regard nature of the injury. The doctor in his report has given his opinion to the effect that "injury 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 are simple in nature. Injury no.6 kept under observation caused by hard and blunt objection. the injured Vipin did not support the prosecution story. It is also submitted that neither any X-ray was conducted nor any report to that effect was filed in the case diary. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.6.2025. The applicant has criminal history of two cases which have been duly explained in paragraph 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence, the applicant may be granted bail.

¶21

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.

¶22

On due consideration to the facts that the applicant is in judicial custody since 24.6.2025; the applicant has criminal history of two cases which have been duly explained in affidavit filed in support of the bail application; there is delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R., no X-ray was conducted; the injured Vipin Singh did not support the prosecution story; without entering into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶24

Let the applicant- Arvind Kumar Yadav involved in Case Crime No.168 of 2025 (supra) be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶25

BAIL No. 7661 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶28

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court, either personally or through his counsel.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

¶32

March 16, 2026

¶33

Shukla

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. 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

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

Prakash Vikram Singh @ Vipul Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rahul Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Mohammad Irfan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Another

Mo. Talim Alias Raja vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Gulfam @ Malikhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.