Nitin Yadav @ Kaluwa vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard Sri Aniket Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 50 of 2022 under Sections 307, 504 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act registered at Police Station Shahjadnagar, District Rampur during pendency of the trial.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that this is second bail application on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was rejected vide order dated 18.4.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 52691 of 2022. It is further submitted that two witnesses have turned hostile and the injured has also not supported the prosecution case in his cross-examination. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail for the last four years and trial is not likely to conclude in near future. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant that PW1 has supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief.

5. This is second bail application on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was rejected vide order dated 18.4.2024. Three witnesses are said to have been examined out of which, two witnesses have turned hostile and the injured has also not supported the prosecution case in his cross-examination.

6. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that applicant is languishing in jail for the last four years and trial is not likely to conclude in near future, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.

7. Let the applicant Nitin Yadav @ Kaluwa involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) 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.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

(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 the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

May 7, 2026

Madhurima