[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Deepak Yadav @ Raka vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 16 April, 2026
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:26125
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2619 of 2026
Deepak Yadav @ Raka
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Gyanendra Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.
1. Shri Ramakar Shukla, Advocate on behalf of the complainant has filed his vakalatnama, and Shri Gyanendra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit, the same are taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Gyanendra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record..
3. By means of this application preferred, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 461 of 2025, under Sections 140(1), 103(1), 61(2), 238, 3(5) BNS (corresponding Sections 364A, 302, 120-B, 201, 34 IPC), Police Station- Chanda, District Sultanpur is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
4. Brief facts of the present case are that on 07.12.2025 at about 13.17 hours, an FIR has been lodged under Sections 140(1)/103(1)/61(2)/238/3(5) BNS (corresponding Sections 364A/302/120-B/201/34 IPC) against ten named accused persons including the present applicant alleging therein that the cousin brother of the informant namely Aman Yadav aged about 21 years of age had come to pick the informant from his house. He called the informant but the call could not be received and that is why, the informant tried to contact Aman Yadav (the deceased) on his mobile and after sometime, it was found that the mobile is switched off, then, he left his house to search Aman Yadav and near Ishipur Flyover, he found abandoned motorcycle of the deceased (Aman Yadav) and he got information from some persons around there that at about 07.45 PM some people on Ertiga Car took one person by beating and thrashing and it has also been informed that the names of those persons who are named in the FIR including the present applicant. They had killed his cousin brother at Parasnath Inter College and thrown his body in Gomti river.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the story in the FIR and the statement given by the informant under Section 180 BNSS that he gathered information from the people around there, where the abandoned motorcycle was found and they told the names of accused persons. The police on the basis of the said statement checked the video footage of that area and recorded the statements of five persons who had seen the incident and who were around the place of incident as per the FIR but none of those five persons have taken the name of the applicant. They have taken the names of other six co-accused persons in their statement.
6. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant has also cropped up in the statement of one Sri Uma Shankar, who has alleged himself as uncle of the deceased (Aman Yadav) and his statement was recorded as an eye-witness of the incident.
7. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of three cases including the present one, the details of which have been given in paragraph 9 to 12 of the supplementary affidavit filed today. Out of those, in two cases he is already enlarged on bail whereas, in in a case registered under the provisions of the Gangsters Act, the bail of the applicant has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur.
8. It is further submitted that the co-accused Vijay Bahadur Yadav @ Vijay Yadav has already been granted bail by this court vide order dated 31.03.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2278 of 2026 and the applicant is entitled for the parity of the same as the allegations and evidence available against the co-accused is same as that levelled against the present applicant.
9. On the other hand, learned AGA and Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant/complainant while opposing the bail application have submitted that in the statement of eye-witness namely Uma Shankar, the name of the applicant is there.
10. It is further submitted that Uma Shankar had seen the incident of beating his nephew deceased- Aman Yadav in the light of the vehicle, he recognized all the persons, hence the offence is made out against the applicant also.
11. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the statement of alleged eye witness was recorded after eighteen days of the incident and if he was the eye witness and he narrated the incident to the family member of the deceased - Aman Yadav on the same day of incident, then why the FIR was not lodged immediately. The FIR was lodged on the next day at around 1.00 PM. He was not the eye witness otherwise the informant must have stated the said fact in the FIR and in his statement, so he has been introduced as an eye witness of the incident otherwise there is no eye witness to the incident as narrated in the FIR.
12. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and going through the record of the case, prima facie, it appears that the persons from whom the informant got the information about the incident, the police during the investigation from the CCTV footage of that area had recorded the statements of five persons and those persons had taken the names of other six co-accused persons but the name of the applicant was not taken by them. The name of the applicant cropped up in the statement of the alleged eye witness Uma Shankar (the uncle of the deceased-Aman Yadav) which was recorded after 18 days of incident and his statement appears to be doubtful for the reason that when he had seen the incident and intimate the same to the father of the deceased- Aman Yadav, at the very same time by returning home, then why the FIR was not lodged either by the father of the deceased or by alleged eye witness- Uma Shankar immediately which prima facie makes the prosecution story suspicious against the applicant. Prima facie, it is found that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity
13. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.
14. Let the applicant- Deepak Yadav @ Raka be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-
(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.
(v) 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.
(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
15. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
16. As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.
(Manish Kumar,J.)
April 16, 2026
DiVYa
