Yogesh @ Mukul vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 24 of 2026, under Sections 309(6), 311, 312, 317(2), 3(5), 109(1) BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Ratanpuri, District Muzaffar Nagar during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant was arrested in Case Crime No. 25 of 2026, under Sections 109(1) BNS and Sections 3, 25 and 28 of the Arms Act, Police Station Ratanpuri, District Muzaffar Nagar and has been implicated in the present case. False recovery of a country made pistol and a live cartridge has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Except the confession of the applicant in police custody, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Yogendra Sharma has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13624 of 2026. The applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 14 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 22.02.2026 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Except the confession of the applicant in police custody, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Yogendra Sharma has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant Yogesh @ Mukul, involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

May 6, 2026

Lbm/-