Allahabad High Court
ABHISHEK YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
Bail was granted to the accused as the specific act of firing was assigned to a co‑accused.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Abhishek Yadav, who was charged under Sections 109(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code in connection with a shooting incident in Deoria. The prosecution alleged that Yadav had called the victim, Prakash Yadav, to a park where co‑accused Shaurya Yadav fired a country‑made pistol, injuring the victim. Yadav contended that he had no direct role in the firing and was falsely implicated, and he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail. After reviewing the submissions and the record, the Court noted that the specific act of firing was attributed to Shaurya Yadav and therefore found no substantive reason to keep Yadav in custody. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court granted bail on personal bond and sureties, without addressing the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused Abhiszek Yadav is entitled to bail despite being named in the FIR for a shooting incident.
- Whether the absence of a specific role in the firing justifies granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- specific role
- Indian Penal Code
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33751 of 2026
Abhishek Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Alok Kushwaha, learned counsel for accused applicant and
learned A.G.A. for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Abhishek Yadav to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 202 of 2026,
under Sections 109(1), 61(2), 3(5) BNS, P.S.- Lar, District- Deoria,
during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the accused
applicant has been falsely implicated in FIR dated 07.07.2026 lodged by
the police with the allegation against six named persons including the
accused applicant that the accused applicant has called injured Prakash
Yadav in a park where other accused were sitting and using the country
made pistol. It is during the testing of opening and closing of the country
made pistol that the co-accused Shaurya Yadav had opened fire at
Prakash Yadav, who suffered gunshot injury on his neck. It is further
contended that there is no specific role assigned to the accused applicant.
Only the role is that he has connived with the co-accused in the offence.
The accused applicant has no criminal history. Charge sheet is submitted.
The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 22.07.2026. He seeks
enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State opposed the bail application.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
BAIL No. 33751 of 2026
2
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering that the specific role of firing is assigned to the co-accused
Shaurya Yadav, the accused/applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
8. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the
Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 29, 2026
Abhishek Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…