Allahabad High Court
SACHCHIDANAND YADAV @ LALDHAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application is rejected as the applicant is not entitled to bail given the evidence indicating his role as the principal assailant.
Summary
The applicant, Sachchidanand Yadav, was arrested in a murder case alleging that he, along with co‑accused, brutally assaulted and killed the informant’s son with an axe on 29‑08‑2025. He filed a bail application, contending that the FIR was delayed by over five hours, the injuries did not match the prosecution’s version, and that the eye‑witness statements were recorded belatedly and were unreliable. The prosecution argued that fresh statements from the informant and two witnesses directly implicated the applicant as the principal assailant and that an axe was recovered from his possession. The court noted that the co‑accused had already been granted bail, but held that the applicant’s alleged role as the main perpetrator, supported by the recent witness testimonies, rendered the bail application untenable. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, with the court directing an expeditious trial while limiting its observations to the bail matter alone.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the murder charge and the recent incriminating statements of witnesses.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and alleged procedural lapses justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 3(5), 351(3), 352, 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- axe
- FIR delay
- eye‑witness testimony
- serious offence
- co‑accused bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9448 of 2026
Sachchidanand Yadav @ Laldhar Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Yadav, Saroj Kumar
Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.21 out of 116)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Saroj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Navnath
Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.190 of 2025, under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 352, 351(3),
3(5), 61(2) B.N.S. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police
Station Kuberasthan, District Kushinagar with the prayer to enlarge him on
bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant, along with co-accused persons, is
stated to have brutally assaulted the son of the informant and committed his
murder on 29.08.2025 at about 8:00 p.m.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by
more than five hours, and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
The injuries sustained by the deceased do not match the prosecution story.
There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons.
The statements of the three eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR, namely
Gyaneshwar, Vikas, and Satyarth, were recorded belatedly, and they have
also allayed general allegations against the applicant and all the accused
persons.
BAIL No. 9448 of 2026
2
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that subsequently two
more witnesses have been roped in by the prosecution, namely Amrendra
Singh and Kunwar Bahadur Singh, who have assigned the role of the
applicant as having assaulted the deceased with an axe. This statement has
also been made by the informant. These statements have been recorded as an
afterthought, just to keep the applicant incarcerated. The co-accused,
Shrinivas Yadav @ Gullu, Gyanendra @ Gyan Yadav and Chandradeep
Yadav, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated
11.02.2026, 23.02.2026 and 10.03.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application Nos.4995 of 2026, 6543 of 2026 and 8046 of 2026 respectively,
as such, the applicant is also entitled to bail. The applicant is in jail since
31.08.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that, although there
were general and omnibus allegations in the FIR, the subsequent statements
of the informant and the two eye-witnesses categorically indicate that the
applicant was the main assailant and was carrying an axe. There is recovery
of an axe at the pointing out of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled to
bail.
8. The case of the applicant stands distinguished to the other co-accused
persons.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the statements of the informant and the two independent eye-witnesses,
namely Amrendra Singh and Kunwar Bahadur Singh, and that the applicant
inflicted injuries on the deceased with an axe, I do not find it a fit case for
grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits
and is, accordingly, rejected.
10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as
has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain
and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal
impediment.
BAIL No. 9448 of 2026
3
11. 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 19, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…