Allahabad High Court
SANJEEV KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the case is fit for bail and therefore allowed the bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita with conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for a case involving multiple IPC offences (147, 323, 342, 376, 420, 504, 506, 34, 392, 411). He claimed that a prior grant of bail was not acted upon due to a communication gap, leading to a non‑bailable warrant and his arrest on 25‑06‑2026. The State opposed bail, alleging that the applicant had been absconding for nine months and causing trial delay. The court examined the totality of facts, the nature of the offences, and the record, without expressing an opinion on the merits, and concluded that the case was fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed, subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and several conditions regarding non‑interference with witnesses and attendance at trial dates.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita despite the applicant’s alleged abscondence and the pending serious IPC charges.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351, 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 323, 34, 342, 376, 392, 411, 420, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- non‑bailable warrant
- communication gap
- IPC offences
- Section 483 B.N.S.S.
- trial delay
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31106 of 2026
Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rabindra Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Rabindra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant who has filed
supplementary affidavit which is taken on record, Kumari Poonam Rajpoot, learned
counsel for the first informant, Sri Shiv Dutt Shukla, 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. 951 of 2024 under Sections 147, 323, 342, 376, 420, 504, 506,
34, 392, 411 IPC registered at Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar
during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was
granted bail in the present case, however, due to some communication gap, he was not
aware about the proceedings of the case and he could not appear before the learned
trial court, therefore, non bailable warrant were issued against him and he was
arrested. It is further submitted that applicant is in jail since 25.6.2026 and he is ready
and willing to co-operate in the trial. 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. as well as learned counsel for the fist informant
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that applicant has
remained absconded for the last nine months due to which, the trial has been delayed.
5. Applicant was granted bail in the present case, however, due to non appearance
before the learned trial court, non bailable warrant were issued against him on
25.6.2026 and he was arrested. It is submitted that applicant is resident of district Etah
whereas the trial is going on in District Bulandshahar and due to some communication
gap, dates of the proceedings could not be informed to him. Applicant is in jail since
BAIL No. 31106 of 2026
2
25.6.2026 and he is ready and willing to co-operate in the trial.
6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record
and 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 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav 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 and shall not seek any undue adjournment.
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.
September 18, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…