Allahabad High Court

RAMU YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME GOV. OF U.P. AT LUCKNOW

Decided: 23 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that in the absence of any evidential link or risk of interference, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ramu Yadav in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31534 of 2026, relating to Crime No. 553 of 2025 under several IPC sections. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, his name only appeared during investigation, no tractors were recovered from him, and there was no corroborative evidence linking him to the offences. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The Court noted that co‑accused had already been granted bail, the applicant had been in custody for over a month, and there was no material showing a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail and ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, not named in the FIR and lacking corroborative evidence, is entitled to bail.
Whether the State has demonstrated a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay sufficient to deny bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 111(2)(b), 303(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
pre‑trial detention
false implication
Indian Penal Code
evidence
co‑accused parity

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31534 of 2026

Ramu Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home
Gov. Of U.P. At Lucknow .....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dwijendra Prasad, Pramod Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available
on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 553 of 2025, under Sections 303(2),
318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111(2)(b) B.N.S., Police Station Shikohabad,
District Firozabad, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned 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 during course of
investigation. The alleged tractors were not recovered from the possession of
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, the co-accused Teetu @ Himanshu and Sameer @ Dabbu
have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 26.11.2025 and
3.2.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 40804 of 2025 and
3597 of 2026 respectively. The applicant claims parity. Criminal history of
the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-22 of the bail application. The
applicant is in jail since 12.8.2026 and if he is released on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
BAIL No. 31534 of 2026
2

satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the
first information report. The name of the applicant surfaced during course of
investigation. The alleged tractors were not recovered from the possession of
the applicant. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. The co-accused Teetu @ Himanshu and Sameer
@ Dabbu have been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has
remained confined for more than a month and there is no hope of early
conclusion of trial, and 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 delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore,
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- Ramu Yadav, involved in the aforesaid case, be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the
conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

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…