Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Yuvraj Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ...

Allahabad High Court6 May 2026

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a first bail application involves charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the applicant has been in custody for a considerable period, and a co-accused in the same case has been granted bail, the court may enlarge the applicant on bail on the basis of the applicant's criminal history and the period of custody, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Observations made in a bail order are confined to the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCHNeutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:32471HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABADLUCKNOWCRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3255 of 2026Yuvraj Pandey.....Applicant(s)VersusState Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko......Opposite Party(s)Counsel for Applicant(s):Sooraj Lal, Archana Verma, Prahlad SinghCounsel for Opposite Party(s):G.A.Court No. - 28HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 99 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 324(2), 308(5), 351(3), 352, 61(2)(a), 288 B.N.S., Police Station Patti, District Pratapgarh.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name came to light in the statement of Amit who is the brother of the complainant. The complainant while giving statement under Section 180 BNSS has not stated anything against the applicant. It is further submitted that it is an admitted fact that except the complainant, no one was present at the time of the alleged incident.

It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of three cases which are duly explained in the bail application and he is in jail since 8.4.2026. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. He undertakes that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

The co-accused Harshit Singh has been granted bail vide order passed in bail No.3091 of 2026.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 8.4.2026; his criminal history has duly been explained, bail order of co-accused, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Yuvraj Pandey, involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court, either personally or through his counsel.

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

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.

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

May 6, 2026

kkb/

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free