Allahabad High Court
Sandeep Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 21 November, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:208474
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41202 of 2025
Sandeep Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal, Pramod Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for applicant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.160 of 2025, under Section 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have assaulted his brother with an axe on 16.03.2025 at about 7:45 p.m. in an inebriated state, who was rushed to Government Medical College, Tirwa, whereby he was declared dead during treatment. The FIR was instituted in the night at 1:46 a.m. of 17.03.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is a case of sudden provocation. A case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been converted into murder after coming to know that the wife of applicant had illicit relationship with the deceased. It is established that previously wife of the applicant had conversations with Saurabh 186 times on mobile, who had shown indecent video in a compromising state between the wife of applicant and the deceased
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 17.03.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is an open and shut case as the applicant has committed murder of his brother only and the eye-witness is the father of the applicant only. Why would he falsely implicate the applicant. The offence has been near the house of the applicant only, as such, he is not entitled for bail.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the said crime has been committed by the applicant that too near his own house, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
November 21, 2025
(Ravi Kant)
