Allahabad High Court

YOGESH @ MUKULversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail as there is no substantive evidence or risk justifying its denial.

Summary

The applicant, Yogesh @ Mukul, filed a bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS for offences including Sections 309(6), 311, 312, 317(2), 3(5), 109(1) of the BNSS and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the only evidence against him was his own confession and a disputed recovery of a pistol and cartridge with no independent witness, and that a co‑accused in identical circumstances had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail but could not rebut these submissions. The Court held that, on a prima facie basis, there is no corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the crime and no material risk of tampering or intimidation, especially after two months of incarceration. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and lacks corroborative evidence, is entitled to bail.
Whether the risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay justifies denial of bail.
Whether parity with a co‑accused granted bail mandates the same relief for the applicant.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25, 27, 28, 3
B.N.S. — s. 109(1), 309(6), 311, 312, 317(2), 3(5)

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
evidence
confession
Arms Act
BNSS
parity
co‑accused

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14413 of 2026

Yogesh @ Mukul
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sandeep Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

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.
BAIL No. 14413 of 2026
2

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/-

Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…