Allahabad High Court
YOGESHWAR JAISWALversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Yogeshwar Jaiswal in a case under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 111(2)(b) of the IPC and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, which was lodged five days after the alleged incident, and that the recovery of batteries and e‑rickshaws was unsubstantiated. The State could not refute these points and failed to show any risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. The court noted that a co‑accused in identical circumstances had already been granted bail, and the applicant had been in custody for over two months. Finding no substantive reason to deny bail, the court ordered the applicant’s release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused was not named in the FIR and the FIR was filed with delay
- Whether there is a likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses
- Whether parity with a co‑accused already granted bail warrants granting bail to the applicant
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 3(5)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 111(2)(b), 303(2), 317(2), 317(4)
Subjects
- bail
- FIR delay
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
- parity
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31568 of 2026
Yogeshwar Jaiswal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghvendra Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned
AGA 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. 360 of 2026, under Sections 303(2),
317(2), 317(4), 111(2)(b), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali, District-
Azamgarh, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the
first information report. The incident is alleged to have occurred on
01.07.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 06.07.2026.
The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. On the basis of information furnished by informer, three
persons were arrested. One of the co-accused Mohd. Mizan thereafter
disclosed the name of the applicant and four others. False recovery of 36
batteries and 8 E-rickshaws has been shown at the pointing out of the
applicant and other accused persons. There is no independent witness to the
alleged recovery. The recovered batteries and E-rickshaws cannot be linked
with the alleged offence. The applicant is neither a member of any organized
crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Further, identically
placed co-accused Brijesh Kumar Gupta has been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 31.8.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.30496 of 2026. Applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant
has been explained in paragraph-31 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail
since 07.07.2026. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said
BAIL No. 31568 of 2026
2
liberty.
4. Learned AGA for the State 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 applicant was not named in the first
information report. The first information report has been lodged belatedly.
The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. There
is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Further, identically placed
co-accused Brijesh Kumar Gupta has been granted bail by this Court.
Moreover, the applicant has 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 delay the trial or
intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of
the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant- Yogeshwar Jaiswal, involved in the aforesaid case
crime, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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;
(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 8, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…