Jitendra Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko
2025 Latest Caselaw 11036 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jitendra Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko on 25 September, 2025

Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar

Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 



 

 

 

 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11048 of 2024
 

 

 

 

 
.applicant(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
..Respondents(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
 
:
 
Atul Verma, Akhilendra Pratap Singh, Vinod Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 
G.A., Arun Sinha
 

 
Reserved on 27.08.2025
 
Delivered on 25.09.2025
 
Court No. - 12-
 

 
HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Arun Sinha and Umang Aggarwal, learned counsel for the complainant.

2. This is the second bail application preferred by the applicant. His earlier bail application was rejected by order dated 06.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6166 of 2023. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:

"9. Considering the submissions made at the bar, in terms of the F.I.R., allegations levelled are against all the four accused of having caused the firearm injuries in an indiscriminate manner in a public place at about 4.00 p.m. The said allegations in the F.I.R. are duly corroborated by the statement of the injured witnesses. The recovery is also allegedly shown from the applicant. As per the I.O., the call details records of the applicant also prima facie indicates the complicity of the applicant in the offence in question. Without going into the merit of the case, particularly in relation to C.D.R. at this stage, the material to suggest the complicity of the applicant with the offence in question in the form of statements and the recovery is sufficient for this court to form an opinion that the gruesome offence was committed by all the accused persons. The plea of alibi can be taken by the applicant at the time of trial.

10. However accepting the fact that the applicant is being in custody since 20.12.2022, the trial has not yet started, learned trial court is directed to proceed with recording the statements of the eye witnesses as well as the informant, within four months from today, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

11. The Commissioner of Police, Lucknow is directed to ensure that the eye witnesses and the informant appear for depositions of their statements and cross examination before the court concerned.

12. Considering the gravity of the offence and prima facie evidence linking the applicant with the offence in question, the application for bail is rejected. However, giving liberty to the applicant to apply fresh bail application after the statement of the informant and the fact witnesses are recorded or after expiry of period of four months.

13. The office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court as well as Commissioner of Police, Lucknow."

3. A perusal of the aforesaid rejection order indicates that liberty was granted to the applicant to file a fresh bail application after the examination of the informant and fact witnesses, or alternatively, after the lapse of four months.

4. Availing the liberty so granted by this Court vide order dated 06.05.2024, the applicant has preferred the present bail application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that more than one year has passed since rejection of the first bail application. Since the informant and the fact witnesses have been examined, there is no chance of tampering the evidence.. The applicant is in custody since 20.12.2022.

6. It is further submitted that co-accused Shiva Yadav @ Shamsher Yadav, who was assigned a similar role, has been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.07.2025, as annexed in Annexure No. 6 of the Supplementary Affidavit.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. submit that co-accused Shiva Yadav was granted bail on account of concealment of his prior conviction in Sessions Trial No. 377A of 2008 arising out of Case Crime/FIR No. 667 of 2007 under Sections 307/34, 120-B IPC, P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. He had been convicted vide judgment dated 09.02.2011 and sentenced to ten years imprisonment.

8. It is also pointed out that co-accused Munna Michael @ Afzal has not cross-examined any of the witnesses and has moved an application seeking recall of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3. Applications are pending and have not been disposed of yet. Likewise, an application for recall of PW-1 has also been filed by co-accused Shiva Yadav and the present applicant Jitendra Yadav, just to delay the trial.

9. It is, therefore, contended that until cross-examination of material witnesses is completed and recall applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant and other co-accused are decided, bail ought not to be granted. The crime is heinous in nature, supported by eye-witness accounts of a daylight murder. Oral testimony is corroborated by medical evidence, which records four entry wounds and two exit wounds on the deceased. The allegations stand further substantiated by the injured witnesss statement recorded both during investigation and trial. Recovery of incriminating articles, including pistols, has been made from each of the four accused.

10. Perused the record.

11. While rejecting the first bail application vide order dated 16.05.2024, this Court had granted liberty to the applicant to move afresh after recording of the statements of the informant and fact witnesses. A recall application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was subsequently moved by the applicant seeking re-examination of PW-1. The learned trial court, however, kept the said application in abeyance vide order dated 11.09.2024, observing that examination of formal witnesses was in progress and recalling fact witnesses at that stage would disturb the sequence of trial and cause delay.

12. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.01.2025, a coordinate Bench of this Court, after hearing both sides, sought a report from the trial court regarding the current status of trial. The order dated 31.01.2025 reads as follows:

Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Arun Singha, learned counsel for the informant.

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that all fact/ relevant witnesses have been examined in the present matter and in terms of order dated 06.05.2024, whereby the first bail application of the applicant was rejected, the present application may be disposed of.

It has been informed at the bar that two applications under Section 311 CrPC have been filed on behalf of other accused persons which are pending since long and those applications have not been disposed of till date, therefore, it cannot be said that all fact/ relevant witnesses have been examined.

Accordingly, list this case on 17.02.2025.

By the next date of listing, the learned Trial Court shall submit the report relating to the current status of trial by a detailed order so that the current status of trial could be understood properly. If any application under Section 311 CrPC is pending before the learned Trial Court, the fate of those application(s) would also be intimated and if those application(s) have not been decided, any appropriate order may be passed on those application(s) strictly in accordance with law.

The Superintendent of Jail concerned is directed to provide the current medical report of the applicant as he is said to have been suffering from Brain Tuberculosis and is condition is not well, therefore, such report may be called from an expert from K.G.M.U. or from any other government hospital.

Office is directed to provide the copy of this order to the learned Trial Court as well as the Superintendent of Jail concerned within three working days for its compliance.

When the case is next listed, the name of Sri Arun Sinha, Advocate may be printed in the next cause list as the counsel for the informant.

13. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the trial court submitted its report dated 14.02.2025, which is on record.

14. A perusal of the report dated 14.02.2025 shows that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant was again kept in abeyance on the ground that formal witnesses had not yet been examined. Another report dated 10.07.2025 sought in the case of co-accused Shiva Yadav indicates that 11 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the matter is now fixed for further prosecution evidence. The applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant as well as co-accused remain pending. The coordinate Bench of this Court, while allowing bail to co-accused Shiva Yadav, has also taken note of the report dated 10.07.2025.

15. With respect to the objection raised by learned counsel for the complainant that bail of Shiva Yadav was granted owing to concealment of his conviction, it has been clarified on behalf of the applicant that the application for cancellation of Shiva Yadavs bail is still pending and yet to be decided. Further, such allegations pertain to co-accused and do not affect the present applicant.

16. The coordinate Bench of this Court granted bail to co-accused Shiva Yadav after taking into account the trial courts report dated 10.07.2025. It was noted therein that all fact witnesses had already been examined, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and though applications for recall were pending, no fact witness remained to be examined. The Court further observed that there was no likelihood of tampering with the evidence. While allowing bail, reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (AIR 2021 SC 712), Paras Ram Vishnoi v. Director, CBI (Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 3610 of 2020) and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground.

17. In light of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, the bail order passed in favour of co-accused Shiva Yadav, and considering that the present applicant is in custody since 20.12.2022 without any criminal antecedents; the fact witnesses have already been examined (11 out of 20 prosecution witnesses examined); there is no real prospect of the trial concluding in the near future; and in view of the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant not to misuse the liberty and to cooperate with trial proceedings, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

18. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant Jitendra Yadav involved in Case Crime No. No.434/2022, U/S-302 IPC PS- Kakori, District-Lucknow, 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:-

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

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

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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. 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.

(v) 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 in accordance with law.

(vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

20. 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.

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

25, September, 2025

RC