Allahabad High Court
MEHI LAL YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that bail must be granted as the applicant satisfied the criteria for bail and parity with the co‑accused warranted his release.
Summary
Mehi Lal Yadav applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 534 of 2025) under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that he was falsely implicated and that the alleged homicide was actually an accidental injury. He argued that he was not driving the car that struck the deceased, that a co‑accused (Munna Lal Yadav) had already been granted bail on identical facts, and that his criminal history was minimal. The State opposed bail, contending that the car involved belonged to the applicant and that this fact barred his release. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that pending cases do not preclude bail and on the principle of parity with the co‑accused, found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties, and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the IPC during trial.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle involved in the incident precludes the grant of bail.
- Whether the principle of parity with a co‑accused who was granted bail applies.
- Whether the existence of other pending criminal cases affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- parity
- IPC Section 103
- IPC Section 61
- vehicle ownership
- false implication
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9374 of 2026
Mehi Lal Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kumar Srivastava, Indra Bhan
Yadav, Sujit Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.16 out of 116)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Dr. S.B. Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sujit Kumar
Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the informant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.534 of 2025, under Sections
103(1), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Bhadohi, District Bhadohi, during the
pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. A
case of accidental injury has been converted into a case of homicide by the
informant. The applicant was not seen driving the said car. The similarly
placed co-accused, Munna Lal Yadav, has been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 24.02.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6755 of
2026, hence, the applicant, having an identical role, is entitled to bail on
parity. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands
explained. He is in jail since 10.12.2025 and will not misuse the liberty of
bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the car with
BAIL No. 9374 of 2026
2
which the deceased was hit belongs to the applicant, as such, he is not
entitled to bail.
6. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another,
(2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases
against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his
case for bail is made out.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the
judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of
U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgements passed by the Supreme Court in
Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation,
MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 and in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Court is of the
view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is
allowed on the ground of parity.
8. Let the applicant- Mehi Lal Yadav, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 19, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…