Allahabad High Court
NITIN YADAV @ KALUWAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that bail is appropriate and allowed the application.
Summary
The High Court considered a second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for Nitin Yadav, who is charged under IPC Sections 307 and 504 and the Arms Act (Sections 4 and 25). The applicant had been in custody for four years and his earlier bail plea was rejected. Counsel highlighted that two of three prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and the victim did not support the prosecution, arguing that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The State opposed bail, noting that the victim’s examination-in-chief supported the prosecution. Weighing the prolonged detention, the hostile witnesses, and the lack of merit discussion, the Court found the case fit for bail, ordered release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, and imposed standard bail conditions. The order expressly limited its scope to the bail application and did not comment on the merits of the criminal case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case involving IPC Sections 307, 504 and the Arms Act.
- Whether the presence of hostile witnesses and the victim’s non‑cooperation affect the bail decision.
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention and pendency of the trial justify granting bail despite a prior denial.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 4
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 504
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- hostile witnesses
- Section 483 B.N.S.S.
- IPC 307
- IPC 504
- Arms Act
- court pendency
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28222 of 2025
Nitin Yadav @ Kaluwa
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Keshari Nath Tripathi, Pushpendra
Vishvakarma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Aniket Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-
respondents and perused the record.
2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on
bail in Case Crime No. 50 of 2022 under Sections 307, 504 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act
registered at Police Station Shahjadnagar, District Rampur during pendency of the
trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that this is second bail
application on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application was rejected vide
order dated 18.4.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 52691 of 2022. It is
further submitted that two witnesses have turned hostile and the injured has also not
supported the prosecution case in his cross-examination. It is further submitted that
applicant is languishing in jail for the last four years and trial is not likely to conclude
in near future. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse
the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency
of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
applicant that PW1 has supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief.
5. This is second bail application on behalf of the applicant and his first bail
application was rejected vide order dated 18.4.2024. Three witnesses are said to have
been examined out of which, two witnesses have turned hostile and the injured has
also not supported the prosecution case in his cross-examination.
6. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the
fact that applicant is languishing in jail for the last four years and trial is not likely to
BAIL No. 28222 of 2025
2
conclude in near future, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it
to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.
7. Let the applicant Nitin Yadav @ Kaluwa involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following
conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates
fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement
under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any
adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial
court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either
personally or through his counsel.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression
on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its
independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in
this order.
May 7, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…