Jay Shankar Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant who is involved in FIR/Case Crime No.0139 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 333, 109(1) BNS, P.S.- Raniganj, District- Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report has been registered with delay of three days. Due to litigation on civil side between the parties, entire family including the applicant has been made accused in this case. Co-accused Ram Jiyawan has been granted bail by the Sessions Court whereas co-accused, namely, Shiv Shankar Yadav, having identical role, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.04.2026, passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.655 of 2026, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant has no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 14.10.2025. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

4. 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.

5. On due consideration to the facts that the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.10.2025 having no criminal history; identically situated co-accused person, namely, Shiv Shankar Yadav has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.04.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.655 of 2026, 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 on the ground of parity.

6. Let the applicant- Jay Shankar Yadav be released on bail in the aforementioned case 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 prosecution evidence during the trial.

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

(iii) 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 and he shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial 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.

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

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

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

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

May 6, 2026

Anand/-