Allahabad High Court

JITENDRA YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 9 April 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court held that despite the prima facie case and seriousness of the offences, the applicant's lack of evidentiary linkage to the alleged forgery and the absence of flight risk warranted the grant of bail with conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Jitendra Yadav, who was alleged to have conspired in forging an identity card and executing a fraudulent sale deed. The applicant claimed innocence, stating that no credible evidence linked him to the offences and that the actual perpetrator had been arrested. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the seriousness of the charges, the prima facie case, and the risk of evidence tampering and witness intimidation. Balancing these factors against the applicant's lack of flight risk and the absence of injury to any victim, the court decided to grant bail. The order released the applicant on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, criminal activity, intimidation of witnesses, and mandating regular court appearances.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite the seriousness of the charges and a prima facie case.
Whether there is a risk of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released.
Whether the accused's prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 191(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2)

Subjects

bail
forgery
sale deed
false implication
evidence tampering
witness intimidation
criminal antecedent
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7753 of 2026

Jitendra Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sachin Kumar, Sr. Advocate,
Umesh Chandra Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.

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

Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sachin
Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arimardan Yadav,
learned AGA for the State-Respondent and perused the record.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant
seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 340 of 2024, under
Sections 191(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 115(2), 351(2) of the
B.N.S., Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant
is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case crime
number. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the
allegation against the applicant is that the applicant in connivance
with the accused persons and other accused persons had prepared
fake identity card in the name of Jeevan Lal and on the basis of the
same, Babu Lal executed the sale deed in faour of different persons
and collected huge money. He submits that the applicant neither
himself as Jeevan Lal nor he executed any sale deed of the land of
Jeevan Lan in favour of any person. He submits that in the present
case, charge-sheet has been filed on 19.02.2026 cognizance has
also been taken by the court concerned on 23.02.2026, as such the
applicant is not required for any custodial interrogation. He submits
that during the investigation, the Investigating Officer could not collect
any credible evidence against the applicant to connect him in the
BAIL No. 7753 of 2026
2

aforesaid offence. He submits that the person who executed the sale
deed impersonating himself as Jeevan Lal was arrested by the
Investigating Officer. He submits that it is a case of no injury as there
is no allegation in the FIR or in the statement of informant that the
informant or any persons had sustained injury in the alleged incident.
He submits that the sale deed executed by the informant has not
been mutated in the name of the applicant till date. He submits that
the applicant is not involved in the aforesaid forgery in any manner.
The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.11.2025. He submits that
the applicant has criminal antecedent of 9 cases to his credit, which
has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the bail
application as well as in the supplementary affidavit. He submits that
there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering
with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, the bail has been
prayed for.

Learned counsel for the AGA has vehemently opposed, but could not
dispute the aforesaid fact raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

Considering all those 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 case, but without commenting on
merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Jitendra Yadav, involved in above
mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a
personal bond and two reliable sureties 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
BAIL No. 7753 of 2026
3

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.

April 10, 2026
pks

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
PAWAN KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…