Allahabad High Court

BAIJNATH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that Baijnath Yadav is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

Baijnath Yadav was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 105, 352 and 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code, alleged to have caused the death of an informant's father by pushing him. The post‑mortem report showed no ante‑mortem injuries and the cause of death could not be ascertained, leading the applicant to claim that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution. The State opposed bail, while the applicant highlighted that two co‑accused, Brigunath Yadav and Rahul Yadav, had already been released on bail. The court examined the record, noted the lack of substantive medical proof, the absence of any risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, and the applicant's prolonged pre‑trial detention of more than one and a half months. Consequently, the court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions of personal bond, sureties, and compliance with trial dates.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in view of the nature of the offences under Sections 105, 352 and 351(3) IPC.
Whether the medical evidence sufficiently weakens the prosecution case to justify bail.
Whether the applicant’s continued detention is justified given the parity with co‑accused who were granted bail.
Whether there is a reasonable risk of tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses if bail is granted.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 351(3), 352

Subjects

bail
Indian Penal Code
Section 105
Section 352
Section 351(3)
medical evidence
parity
witness tampering
pre‑trial detention

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31482 of 2026

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Syed Riyaz Askari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

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

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 323 of 2026, under Sections 105, 352,
351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- Rudrapura, District- Deoria during pendency
of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. As per the allegations contained in the first
information report, the applicant, along with two other accused persons, is
alleged to have pushed the informant's father, as a result of which, he
sustained internal injuries. He was taken to the hospital immediately, where
he died. As per the postmortem report, no antemortem injury was seen. In
the opinion of the doctor, cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera
was preserved for chemical examination and whole heart was preserved for
histopathological analysis. It is contended that the medical evidence does not
support the prosecution case. The death of informant's father cannot be
attributed to the alleged incident. Further, identically placed co-accused
Brigunath Yadav and Rahul Yadav have been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 24.8.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.29885 of 2026. Applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant
has been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is
in jail since 14.7.2026 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.
BAIL No. 31482 of 2026
2

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the medical evidence does not support the
prosecution case. Further, identically placed co-accused Brigunath Yadav
and Rahul Yadav have been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the
applicant has presently remained confined for more than one and half month
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 applicants, 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 applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant, Baijnath 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 8, 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…