Allahabad High Court
RAHUL YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that Rahul Yadav is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rahul Yadav, who is charged under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code for alleged assault leading to death. The applicant argued that the FIR assigns only a general role to all accused, the post‑mortem shows a single injury suggesting over‑implication, and that a co‑accused has already been released on bail. He also highlighted his clean criminal record and that he has been in custody for over nine months. The State opposed bail but did not refute the factual contentions. After reviewing the record, the court found the prima facie case of over‑implication and the applicant’s lack of prior convictions sufficient to grant bail, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to Rahul Yadav despite the serious nature of the offences alleged under the IPC.
- Whether the evidence of a single injury and the assignment of a general role to all accused indicate over‑implication warranting bail.
- Whether the release of a co‑accused on bail is relevant to the applicant’s bail application.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- section 191
- section 190
- section 103
- section 115
- section 352
- section 351
- over‑implication
- general role
- post‑mortem report
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8010 of 2026
Rahul Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manvendra Narain Pathak, Ram
Krishna Paramhans Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Kumar Yadav, G.A., Karunesh
Pratap Singh
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. None is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri R.K. Paramhans Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Rajnikant Rai, learned AGA for the State.
4. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.266 of 2025, under Sections 191(2),
191(3), 190, 103(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Bhatni,
District Deoria, during pendency of the trial.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however applicant is named
in the FIR alongwith others but only general role has been assigned to all
the accused.
6. He further argued, from the postmortem report it reflects, deceased
sustained only single injury. However, as per prosecution as many as six
persons made assault upon him therefore prima facie it appears to be a
case of over implication.
7. He next submits, even co-accused Mithilesh Yadav has been released
on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2026 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.23772 of 2026 and case of applicant is at par
with him.
BAIL No. 8010 of 2026
2
8. He further argued, applicant is not having any criminal history and in
the present matter he is in jail since 10.12.2025 i.e. for last more than nine
months.
9. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could
not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by the learned counsel for
the applicant.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
11. However, as per allegation applicant alongwith six others made
assault upon the deceased due to which he died but from the postmortem
report it reflects, deceased sustained single injury therefore prima facie it
appears to be a case of over implication.
12. Further, even only general role has been assigned to all the accused.
13. Further, co-accused Mithilesh Yadav has been released on bail by this
Court and case of applicant is at par with him.
14. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present
matter he is in jail since 10.12.2025 i.e. for last more than nine months.
15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
17. Let the applicant - Rahul Yadav 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 the court concerned with the following
conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
BAIL No. 8010 of 2026
3
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
18. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will
be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of
the bail of the applicant.
19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
September 18, 2026
Shahroz
Digitally signed by :-
SHAHROJ ALAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…