Ram Singh @ Bade Tillu @ Ram Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant in relation to FIR/Case Crime No.235 of 2025 under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) B.N.S, Police Station - Jaitpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar.

¶13

For the purposes of entertaining the present application and protecting the interest of the applicant, this Court considered the facts as indicated including that,

¶14

(i) The informant, namely Tara Yadav, along with two others namely, Nishesham Yadav @ Nishekh and Shashank Yadav, son of Ramji, executed a registered sale deed dated 03.12.2022 (Annexure No.3) in favour of the applicant- Ram Kumar yadav S/o Ramajor Yadav and Kali Prasad @ Kali Prasad Jaiswal (one of the accused in the present case arising out of FIR No.0235 of 2025 dated 06.11.2022, lodged at Police Station Jaitpur, District Ambekdar Nagar, in connection to which the present anticipatory bail application has been filed).

¶15

(ii) The copy of the sale deed dated 03.12.2022 (Annexure No.3) indicates that the share of the deceased Rajkamal Yadav was also transferred through this deed by the informant, being guardian of the deceased Rajkamal Yadav.

¶16

NABAIL No. 472 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

(iii) The sale deed also records that a total sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid to the vendors.

¶19

(iv) The record available before this Court including the FIR, indicates that a suit for cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed, on the ground of nonpayment of sale consideration, has not been instituted by the informant and other co-vendors.

¶20

(v) The FIR indicates that Rajkamal Yadav was killed on account of a dispute related to demand raised by him with regard to the sale consideration of property transferred through the sale deed dated 03.12.2022.

¶21

(vi) According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death is a single gun shot injury.

¶22

(vii) The co-accused, namely Satendra Yadav, has already been arrested, and on his pointing out, the weapon used in the crime (gun) has also been recovered by the prosecution. However, the FSL report is still awaited.

¶23

(Viii) The co-accused, namely Avinash Yadav @ Avnish, has indicated the name of the present applicant.

¶24

(x) Other co-accused who have already been apprehended, namely Pradeep Yadav, Satendra Yadav, on whose pointing out the gun used in the crime has been recovered, and Shivam Kumar Yadav, have not indicated the name of the present applicant in the crime indicated in the FIR.

¶25

This Court also considered the submission of the counsel for the applicant which to the effect that in fact the case of the prosecution against the applicant is based on circumstantial evidence and prosecution would prosecute the applicant based upon the confessional statement of co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence.

¶26

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel.

¶27

Considering the aforesaid facts of the case including that (i) the cause of death is a single gunshot injury, (ii) the weapon used in the crime has already been recovered and in this view of the matter, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not required, (iii) from the record

¶28

NABAIL No. 472 of 2026

¶29

3

¶30

available before this Court, the prosecution would proceed against the applicant on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence, and (iv) from the record the motive i.e. dispute related to sale consideration is not apparent as till date in this regard no suit has been filed, this Court finds that the interest of the applicant is liable to be protected.

¶31

Accordingly, as an interim measure, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant - Ram Singh @ Bade Tillu @ Ram Kumar Yadav be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station/Court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;

¶33

(ii) That the accused-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; and

¶34

(iii) That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶35

List/put up this case on 28.03.2026, in top 20 cases along with service report.

¶36

In the meantime, learned A.G.A. shall file counter affidavit.

¶37

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶38

March 17, 2026 Preeti

¶39

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

Ram Singh @ Bade Tillu @ Ram Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh @ Bade Tillu @ Ram 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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lucknow, Thru. Its Assistant Manager vs Deep Chandra and Others

Smt. Poonam Devi and Ors. vs Satya Deo Goyal and Ors.

Smt.Kalawati Vs Chandra Prakash and Ors.

Vijai Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Secondary Education and 2 Others

Mukesh Verma @ Mukesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

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