Allahabad High Court

RAMESH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail as the allegations did not demonstrate a sufficient risk of flight, evidence tampering, or witness intimidation to justify denial of bail.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of accused Ramesh Yadav, who was charged with multiple IPC offences including cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy. The applicant’s counsel argued that he was falsely implicated, that the main accused was the shop manager Ajay Tiwari, and that there was no risk of flight or evidence tampering. The State and the first informant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the charges and potential witness intimidation. After weighing the nature of the accusations, the severity of possible punishment, and the prima facie risk of tampering, the court found that a case for bail existed. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to a personal bond, two sureties of at least Rs.1 lakh each, and conditions prohibiting tampering, criminal activity, intimidation of witnesses, and mandating regular court appearances.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 despite the gravity of the IPC charges.
Whether there is a likelihood of the accused fleeing, tampering with evidence, or intimidating witnesses.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Section 483
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Indian Penal Code
witness tampering
flight risk

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31283 of 2025

Ramesh Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhanshu Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aushim Luthra, G.A., Irshad Husain

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Yagyavalk Pandey, learned AGA for the State, Shri Aushim Luthra, learned
counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Ramesh
Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 1162 of 2024, under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station
Kotwali, District Deoria during the pendency of the trial before the Court
below.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is
innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and
is languishing in jail since 1.6.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that there is a dispute of deposit of money between licensee and the
Manager. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Reena Kediya,
stockiest, in her statement stated that main accused of the occurrence is Ajay
Tiwari, who works there as a Manager and used to look after all the business
related affairs and the applicant was working in the shop. Learned counsel
for the applicant submits that role of the applicant is clearly distinguishable
from main accused Ajay Tiwari. Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that charge sheet in this case has already been filed on 24.8.2025. Further
custodial interrogation of the applicant is no more required. Applicant is
ready to face trial. Applicant has one case of criminal antecedent, which has
BAIL No. 31283 of 2025
2

sufficiently been explained and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from
course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail.
Hence, bail has been prayed for.

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the first informant vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations,
severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting
evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima
facie, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Ramesh Yadav, involved in above mentioned
case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and
two reliable heavy sureties (not below Rs.1 lacs) each, in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

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

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the
trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by
the court concerned.

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

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
May 6, 2026
Ravi Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…