Allahabad High Court

RAMA YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The bail application is allowed, and the accused is released on bail subject to prescribed conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of Rama Yadav, who was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 252 of 2025) involving alleged offences under IPC sections 420, 467, 468 and 471. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that his name was not in the original FIR, that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained two‑year delay, and that the arrest was void for not communicating the grounds. The prosecution contended that the allegations involved a fraudulent contract to secure a government job and raised concerns of witness tampering. The Court noted the Supreme Court’s precedent in Deepak Kumar Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024 INSC 117) and, after weighing the seriousness of the charges against the applicant’s lack of prior serious offences and the absence of a need for further custodial interrogation, granted bail with conditions. The order directed the release of Rama Yadav on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering, intimidation, further criminal activity and ensuring regular court appearances.

Issues considered

Whether the bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is maintainable given the alleged delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the offences.
Whether the arrest of the applicant was valid in view of the alleged non‑communication of grounds of arrest.
Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released on bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 483
Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
delay in FIR
false implication
witness tampering
IPC offences
Section 483
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9384 of 2026

Rama Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bipin Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, G.A.

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

Heard Shri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Arimardan Yadav, learned AGA for the State, Shri Ajay Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Rama
Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 252 of 2025,
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Amariya, District
Pilibhit, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is
innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number
and is languishing in jail since 2.2.2026. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that applicant was not named in the FIR. During course of
investigation, his name surfaced on record. FIR has been lodged with the
delay of 02 years without any plausible explanation for delay in lodging
the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per prosecution
case, allegation against the applicant along with co-accused persons have
duped the first informant for securing his job in a government
department. Applicant is not beneficiary of the money in any manner. The
transaction of money alleged to be shown in the account of applicant does
not connect the applicant with the present case crime number. The ground
of arrest has not been communicated to the applicant, which is mandatory
BAIL No. 9384 of 2026
2

requirement of law and as such, the arrest becomes void ab initio. Much
emphasis has been drawn by learned counsel for the applicant to the Para
13 of decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Deepak Kumar
Shrivas and another versus State of Chattisgarh and others, reported in
2024 INSC 117, which is as under:-

"13. A reading of the entire material on record clearly reflects that it was
totally an unlawful contract between the parties where money was being
paid for securing a job in the government department(s) or private sector.
Apparently, a suit for recovery could not have been filed for the said
purpose and even if it could be filed, it could be difficult to establish the
same where the payment was entirely in cash. Therefore, the respondent
no.6 found out a better medium to recover the said amount by building
pressure on the appellant and his brother by lodging the FIR. Under the
threat of criminal prosecution, may be the appellant would have tried to
sort out and settle the dispute by shelving out some money."

Charge sheet in this case has been filed on 20.4.2026 and cognizance
thereon has already been taken on 30.4.2026. Further custodial
interrogation of the applicant is no more required. Applicant has 09 cases
of criminal antecedent, which have sufficiently been explained and there
is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with
evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the first informant have
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations,
aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, severity of the
punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence,
reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie,
but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Rama 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
BAIL No. 9384 of 2026
3

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 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.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
May 6, 2026
Ravi Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…