Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Pawan Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 4 May, 2026

Author: Samit Gopal

Bench: Samit Gopal





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:101482
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18072 of 2025   
 
   Pawan Yadav    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Saroj Kumar Dubey, Umesh Kumar Vishwakarma   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Praveen Kumar Pandey   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 75
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Saroj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and records perused.

3. This is the third bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Pawan Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 245 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 307, 336, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Barahaj, District Deoria.

4. The first bail application of the application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 34534 of 2023 (Pawan Yadav Vs. State of U.P.). The same reads as under:

"1. Heard Sri Matiur Rehman Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.
2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first informant today in Court is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that he does not intend to file any response to the counter affidavit of the first informant.
4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Pawan Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with S.T. No. 66 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 245 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 307, 336, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Barhaj, District Deoria.
5. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 23.11.2021 by Bhim Yadav against the applicant and 13 other persons alleging therein that on 23.11.2021 the accused persons came to the house of the first informant armed with guns, countrymade pistols, lathi, farsa and bhala wherein co-accused Baij Nath and Lal Ji fired upon Ramesh Yadav and Kokil Nand who died on the spot whereas the other accused persons assaulted other persons in which 09 persons received injuries.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been assigned the role of assault by a lathi and as such his role stands distinguishable with that of co-accused Baij Nath and Lal Ji who were assigned the role of firing upon the two deceased persons. It is argued that co-accused Ajay Yadav, Hansnath Yadav, Ragini and Ranjeet Yadav have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 23.03.2023, 10.10.2022 and 25.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 54056 of 2022, 18975 of 2022, 44319 of 2022 and 25.05.2023, the copy of the said orders is annexed as Annexure-10 to the affidavit. Further co-accused Digvijay Yadav, Paras Nath Yadav and Amresh Yadav have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 04.07.2023 and 21.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 21617 of 2023, 26832 of 2023 and 21344 of 2023, the copy of the said orders have been produced before the Court which are taken on record. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 29 and is in jail since 09.12.2022.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant while placing Annexure-CA-1 to his counter affidavit has argued that the applicant absconded in the present matter after which on an application by the Investigating Officer process u/s 82 (2) Cr.P.C. was issued by the C.J.M., Court No.17., Deoria vide order dated 25.11.2022. Subsequent to the same the applicant was arrested. It is argued that the applicant continued to abscond for 01 year & 01 month and it was only after process of u/s 82 (2) Cr.P.C. he was arrested.
8. Learned counsel for the State also adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant.
9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report, which was lodged on 23.11.2021. He absconded in the matter after which on an application by the Investigating Officer, the C.J.M. concerned issued process u/s 82 (2) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 25.11.2022. The applicant absconded for 01 year & 01 month.
10. In view of the above and looking to the continued abscondance of the applicant for which there is no denial and rebuttal, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

5. Against the said order, the applicant preferred an SLP (Criminal) No. 15304 of 2023 (Pawan Yadav Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh) which stood dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 08.01.2024 by the Apex Court. The said order reads as under:

"Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel submits that the petitioner would not like to press this Special Leave Petition.
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed, as not pressed."

6. A second bail application of the applicant was then filed before this Court which also stood rejected vide order dated 13.12.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 17497 of 2024 (Pawan Yadav Vs. State of U.P.). The same reads as under:

"1. Heard Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Pawan Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with S.T. No.66 of 2023, Case Crime No.245 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 307, 336, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station-Barhaj, District Deoria.
3. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 21.8.2023 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.34534 of 2023.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is in jail since 9.12.2022 and only three witnesses have been examined in the trial and subsequently he comes up with the argument that there are five witnesses examined in the trial and has drawn attention of the Court towards supplementary affidavit dated 14.11.2024 filed by him.
5. On perusal of the said supplementary affidavit in para 9 itself it is mentioned that the statement of P.W.6, 7, 8 and 9 have also been recorded before the trial court. The Court then requested to learned counsel for the applicant to peruse the same and give correct statement about the actual status of trial on which he then states that as per supplementary affidavit, nine witnesses have been examined. It is really very astonishing.
6. Learned counsel for the first informant submits that the statement of all the witness of fact have been recorded and many formal witnesses have also been examined and it is only Investigating Officer and Doctor who remained to be examined.
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the said statement shall also be recorded at the earliest and if needed the circular of the D.G.P, U.P. for recording the statement through video conferencing shall also be considered.
8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that this is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.8.2023, the said order reads as under:-
"1. Heard Sri Matiur Rehman Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.
2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first informant today in Court is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that he does not intend to file any response to the counter affidavit of the first informant.
4. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Pawan Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with S.T. No. 66 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 245 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 307, 336, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Barhaj, District Deoria.
5. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 23.11.2021 by Bhim Yadav against the applicant and 13 other persons alleging therein that on 23.11.2021 the accused persons came to the house of the first informant armed with guns, countrymade pistols, lathi, farsa and bhala wherein co-accused Baij Nath and Lal Ji fired upon Ramesh Yadav and Kokil Nand who died on the spot whereas the other accused persons assaulted other persons in which 09 persons received injuries.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been assigned the role of assault by a lathi and as such his role stands distinguishable with that of co-accused Baij Nath and Lal Ji who were assigned the role of firing upon the two deceased persons. It is argued that co-accused Ajay Yadav, Hansnath Yadav, Ragini and Ranjeet Yadav have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 23.03.2023, 10.10.2022 and 25.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 54056 of 2022, 18975 of 2022, 44319 of 2022 and 25.05.2023, the copy of the said orders is annexed as Annexure-10 to the affidavit. Further co-accused Digvijay Yadav, Paras Nath Yadav and Amresh Yadav have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 04.07.2023 and 21.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 21617 of 2023, 26832 of 2023 and 21344 of 2023, the copy of the said orders have been produced before the Court which are taken on record. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 29 and is in jail since 09.12.2022.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant while placing Annexure-CA-1 to his counter affidavit has argued that the applicant absconded in the present matter after which on an application by the Investigating Officer process u/s 82 (2) Cr.P.C. was issued by the C.J.M., Court No.17., Deoria vide order dated 25.11.2022. Subsequent to the same the applicant was arrested. It is argued that the applicant continued to abscond for 01 year & 01 month and it was only after process of u/s 82 (2) Cr.P.C. he was arrested.
8. Learned counsel for the State also adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant.
9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report, which was lodged on 23.11.2021. He absconded in the matter after which on an application by the Investigating Officer, the C.J.M. concerned issued process u/s 82 (2) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 25.11.2022. The applicant absconded for 01 year & 01 month.
10. In view of the above and looking to the continued abscondance of the applicant for which there is no denial and rebuttal, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

9. The trial in the matter has progressed to an advance stage in which nine prosecution witnesses have been examined. The assurance of learned counsel for the State has substance and there is nothing to disbelieve it.

10. Looking to the stage of trial and the fact that present bail application is the second bail application without any substantial ground on merits, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

7. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the consideration for rejection of the previous bail applications of the applicant by this Court was that he has absconded for about one year and one month. It is only after process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued he was arrested. While placing supplementary affidavit dated 21.01.2026 which is on record learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per annexure 2 to the same being the calendar of the case, 31 witnesses have to be produced and examined before the trial court. Further while placing annexure 4 of the same being the order sheet of the trial court it is submitted that as per the order dated 17.11.2025 of the trial court, the statement of PW-16 was being recorded and thus there were around 15 witnesses remaining to be examined before the trial court. It is submitted that as such the trial will take time. It is further submitted that the role of firing upon the deceased Ramesh Yadav and Kokilnand has been assigned to co-accused Baijnath Yadav and Lalji and thus the case of the applicant stands distinguishable with that of the said two co-accused. It is submitted while placing para 33 of the affidavit that co-accused Ajay Yadav, Ragini, Hansnath Yadav, Amresh Yadav, Paras Nath Yadav, Digvijay Yadav, Ranjeet Yadav, Rakesh Yadav and Baijnath Yadav have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as by this Court. It is submitted that the case of the applicant stands at par with co-accused Hansnath Yadav, Ajay Yadav, Ragini and Paras Nath Yadav, para 34 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 31 of the affidavit and is in jail since 09.12.2022.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits against which the applicant preferred SLP before the Apex Court which was got dismissed as not pressed and then the second bail application of the applicant was also dismissed. It is submitted that the trial is going on in which 16 witnesses have been examined and the other witnesses shall be produced and examined before the trial court. It is further submitted that in an order dated 10.04.2025 passed in the bail application of Baijnath Yadav, in para 4 of the same it is stated that 16 witnesses have to be examined out of which 14 witnesses of fact have already been examined. It is submitted that thus the trial is at a concluding stage. It is submitted that if the applicant is granted bail, he shall again abscond. It is submitted that as such the bail of the applicant be rejected.

9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that this is third bail application. The calendar as filed shows that the prosecution intends to produce 31 witnesses whereas an order of a co-ordinate Bench on 10.04.2025 in its para 4 states that the affidavit of State shows that the prosecution witnesses proposed to be examined are 16 witnesses out of which 14 material witnesses of fact have been examined. The fact but remains that the trial in the matter is still going on and has not concluded. The co-accused Ajay Yadav, Ragini, Hansnath Yadav, Amresh Yadav, Paras Nath Yadav, Digvijay Yadav, Ranjeet Yadav, Rakesh Yadav and Baijnath Yadav have been granted bail.

10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and also the appreciation as raised by learned counsel for the first informant and State it is provided with heavy sureties and one family member, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

11. Let the applicant Pawan Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (one of the sureties of the applicant will be his family member) 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 prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

12. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

13. The bail application is allowed.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of

15. The trial court is further reminded an order dated 07.02.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 55068 of 2023 (Baijnath Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) by which the trial court has been expected and directed to conclude the trial within one year from the production of the certified copy of the said order and further the trial court was directed to proceed with its hearing on a day today basis. The trial court is directed to ensure its compliance in letter and spirit.

(Samit Gopal,J.) May 4, 2026 M. ARIF