Allahabad High Court

SHRAVAN KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 23 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

In the absence of any corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offence and without any risk of tampering or intimidation, bail must be granted.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Shravan Kumar Yadav in a criminal case (Crime No. 118 of 2025) where he was not named in the FIR and was allegedly implicated five months after the incident. The applicant argued lack of corroborative evidence, no criminal antecedents, and parity with a co-accused who had already been released on bail. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The Court found that there was no evidence linking the applicant to the offence, no risk of tampering or witness intimidation, and that the applicant had already been in custody for over two months. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions against evidence tampering, witness pressure, and non‑appearance.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the accused was not named in the FIR and no corroborative evidence exists.
Whether the grant of bail to a co‑accused creates a right to similar relief for the applicant.
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the applicant might tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Whether the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents and prolonged pre‑trial detention justify bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
Indian Penal Code — s. 111(3)

Subjects

bail
pre-trial detention
first information report
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31083 of 2026

Shravan Kumar Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Himanshu Giri, Vaibhav Goswami
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2025, under Sections 111(3)
B.N.S., Police Station- Shahabganj, District- Chandauli during pendency of
the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the
first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
The name of the applicant surfaced after five months of the alleged incident.
The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. No recovery of any
incriminating article was made from the applicant. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. It is next
contended that the applicant is neither a member of any organized crime
syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Further, identically
placed co-accused Govind Kumar Gupta has been enlarged on bail by this
Court vide order dated 2.7.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.22069 of 2026. Applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the
applicant has been explained in para no.12 of the bail application and para
no.4 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 20.7.2026
and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 31083 of 2026
2

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. The name of the applicant surfaced after five months of
the alleged incident. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link
the applicant with the offence. Further identically placed co-accused Govind
Kumar Gupta has been enlarged on bail by this Court. Moreover, the
applicant has no criminal antecedents and presently remained confined for
more than two months and 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 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, Shravan Kumar Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each
of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

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.

September 24, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…