Allahabad High Court

NITESH YADAV @ MANTU YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA

Holding

The Court granted bail to the applicant, finding no sufficient ground to deny his release.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Nitesh Yadav, who was named in an FIR and chargesheet for alleged abduction and assault under IPC sections 140(1), 115(2) and 351(3). The applicant claimed false implication, pointing out that the victim was not recovered from his possession, the medical report showed only a single abrasion, and he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, arguing that the applicant participated in the abduction and assault. The Court noted that the applicant’s role was not specifically established, his antecedents were clean, and the evidence against him was weak compared with co‑accused. Without passing on the merits, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, sureties and conditions to prevent tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses and to ensure regular court appearances.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused named in the FIR and chargesheet for alleged abduction and assault.
Whether the lack of concrete evidence linking the applicant to the assault and his clean antecedents justify bail.
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 180, 183
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 140(1), 351(3)

Subjects

bail
false implication
IPC sections 140 115 351
CrPC sections 180 183
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
criminal antecedents
high court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15271 of 2026

Nitesh Yadav @ Mantu Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neetu Pal, Priyanka Singh, Vijay
Laxmi Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 72
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Learned counsel for the applicant, Learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime no.157 of 2026, under Sections 140(1),
115(2), 351(3) BNS, Police Station Kasya, District Kushinagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The victim was not recovered from
the possession or on the pointing out of the applicant. The applicant has
no criminal antecedents and is in jail since 23.03.2026. The victim, in his
statement under Section 1800 BNSS, specifically nominated the accused-
applicant as the one who had driven the car. In the statement under
Section 183 BNSS of the victim, the applicant is said to have repeatedly
assaulted the victim, which is not substantiated in his medical
examination report. A chargesheet has also been submitted against the
applicant and now there is no requirement of the applicant for custodial
interrogation or recoveries.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended that
the applicant alongwith other accused persons has abducted and assaulted
the victim. The applicant is named in the FIR. An intimation has been
given to the police on the number 112 and lateron the victim was
recovered from the possession of the co-accused Atul Yadav and Preetam
BAIL No. 15271 of 2026
2

Yadav.

5. I have considered the submissions made by Learned counsels for the
parties.

6. The applicant although named in the FIR but he has not been given any
specific role. In the statement under Section 180 BNSS, the applicant was
shown to be driving the vehicle, which was used in the abduction of the
victim. In the statement under Section 183 BNSS, the applicant has been
assigned the role of repeatedly assaulting the victim, however, in the
medical examination report of the victim, only a single abrasion was
found. The victim has not been recovered from the possession or on the
pointing out of the applicant. The case of the applicant is clearly
distinguishable from Atul Yadav and Preetam Yadav. The applicant has
no criminal antecedents.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it
appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail.

8. The bail application is allowed.

9. Let the accused-applicant, Nitesh Yadav @ Mantu Yadav, involved
in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his
executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following
conditions:

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses
and co-operate in the trial.

(iv) The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by
the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted by the court
concerned.
BAIL No. 15271 of 2026
3

10. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court
concerned will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

11. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official
website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel
with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

12. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.

(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
May 6, 2026
A. Pandey

Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…