State of U.P v. Party
Case Details
: Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, Rishi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) Yadav, Suresh Singh : Anuj Kumar Gupta, G.A. Court No. - 66 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General/ Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State Respondent and perused the record. The instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 at the instance of the applicant Ravi Yadav has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 72 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 123, 333, 352, 111(2)Ka of BNS, Police Station Junawai, District Sambhal during the pendency of the trial before the court below. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi, vide order dated 01.07.2025 and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 25.03.2025. Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. It is argued that the FIR giving rise to the present proceedings was lodged nominating four named persons including the applicant and two unknown persons alleging that on
10.03.2025 at 1:00 PM, the father of the informant namely Gulfam Singh Yadav was sitting in his compound when in a pre-planned manner the named accused Dharmveer @ Dhama Son of Mohan Singh along with two other persons came on an Apache Motorcycle forcibly caught hold of his father and injected a poisonous substance in his stomach. When challenged by Prempal and Rajaram, who came to the spot on hearing the screams of the 2 BAIL No. 25132 of 2025 father of the informant the said persons rode off brandishing illegal weapons and saying that "Sala Hamare Pramukh Ravi Yadav, Va Mukesh Yadav, Mahesh Yadav Ko Bahut Pareshan Karta Tha. Aaj Hamne Iska Kissa Kat Diya" The FIR further reveals that the family members of the informant hurriedly took the father of the informant to Aligarh Medical College wherefrom the informant had a talk with his father through Viresh Yadav and got information about the entire incident. The father of the informant died on reaching the Aligarh Medical College whereafter the FIR was got lodged. Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has argued that in the FIR allegations against the applicant in commission of the crime have not been raised. The co-accused Dharmveer alias Dhama has been assigned the role of injecting the deceased with some poisonous substance. The name of the applicant and co-accused, Dr. Mukesh Yadav, Mahesh Yadav has surfaced as conspirators. The post-mortem conducted upon the deceased reveals contusion of size 03 cm x 1.5 cm present over right side of abdomen 5 cm away from umbilicus blackish in colour, The cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved for toxicological and chemical examination. It has further been argued that the informant is not an eyewitness and version of the FIR is based on information from Viresh Yadav on the phone. Gayatri Devi (wife of the deceased), Prempal, Jagdish are also not the eye witnesses and their statements do not reveal anyway. It is also argued that the applicant was arrested on 25.03.2025 on information received from Mukhbir Khas and nothing incriminating was recovered from the applicant. It is also argued that the applicant has been roped in this case on account of political rivalry between the informant Divya Prakash and the applicant who both were contestants for the post of Block Pramukh. The applicant won the election and was appointed Block Pramukh. The informant lost the elections. However, with the applicant now incarcerated in jail the informant has become the Block Pramukh. It has also argued that the deceased was chronic sugar patient suffering from Diabetes and used to administer Insulin injection in the stomach to control it. It appears that the himself injected high dosage of the insulin which resulted in his death. It is next argued that criminal antecedents of six cases have been duly explained in Para 17 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. In all the above cases the applicant has been enlarged on bail. It 3 BAIL No. 25132 of 2025 has also been argued that charge sheet against the applicant has been filed on
20.06.2025 and cognizance has also been taken on 21.06.2025. The custodial interrogation is no more required. Hence bail has been prayed for. Per contra, Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, learned AAG/Senior counsel appearing for the State in opposition to the bail plea has argued that the deceased has been done to death in a planned manner by resorting to a noval method of commission of the crime. The statement of the prosecution witness corroborate the FIR version particularly as regards the manner in which the crime has been committed. The statements cannot be brushed aside at this stage of the proceedings. The FSL Report dated 25.06.2025 reveals that the deceased was administered Arsenic Poison. It is further argued that there is sufficient material evidence collected against the applicant to establish his complicity in the alleged crime. The applicant with a view to clear all opposition to the post of Block Pramuksh in a planned manner carried out the murder of the deceased. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima-facie, involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence. In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case. September 22, 2025 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
: Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, Rishi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) Yadav, Suresh Singh : Anuj Kumar Gupta, G.A. Court No. - 66 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General/ Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State Respondent and perused the record. The instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 at the instance of the applicant Ravi Yadav has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 72 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 123, 333, 352, 111(2)Ka of BNS, Police Station Junawai, District Sambhal during the pendency of the trial before the court below. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi, vide order dated 01.07.2025 and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 25.03.2025. Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. It is argued that the FIR giving rise to the present proceedings was lodged nominating four named persons including the applicant and two unknown persons alleging that on
10.03.2025 at 1:00 PM, the father of the informant namely Gulfam Singh Yadav was sitting in his compound when in a pre-planned manner the named accused Dharmveer @ Dhama Son of Mohan Singh along with two other persons came on an Apache Motorcycle forcibly caught hold of his father and injected a poisonous substance in his stomach. When challenged by Prempal and Rajaram, who came to the spot on hearing the screams of the 2 BAIL No. 25132 of 2025 father of the informant the said persons rode off brandishing illegal weapons and saying that "Sala Hamare Pramukh Ravi Yadav, Va Mukesh Yadav, Mahesh Yadav Ko Bahut Pareshan Karta Tha. Aaj Hamne Iska Kissa Kat Diya" The FIR further reveals that the family members of the informant hurriedly took the father of the informant to Aligarh Medical College wherefrom the informant had a talk with his father through Viresh Yadav and got information about the entire incident. The father of the informant died on reaching the Aligarh Medical College whereafter the FIR was got lodged. Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has argued that in the FIR allegations against the applicant in commission of the crime have not been raised. The co-accused Dharmveer alias Dhama has been assigned the role of injecting the deceased with some poisonous substance. The name of the applicant and co-accused, Dr. Mukesh Yadav, Mahesh Yadav has surfaced as conspirators. The post-mortem conducted upon the deceased reveals contusion of size 03 cm x 1.5 cm present over right side of abdomen 5 cm away from umbilicus blackish in colour, The cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved for toxicological and chemical examination. It has further been argued that the informant is not an eyewitness and version of the FIR is based on information from Viresh Yadav on the phone. Gayatri Devi (wife of the deceased), Prempal, Jagdish are also not the eye witnesses and their statements do not reveal anyway. It is also argued that the applicant was arrested on 25.03.2025 on information received from Mukhbir Khas and nothing incriminating was recovered from the applicant. It is also argued that the applicant has been roped in this case on account of political rivalry between the informant Divya Prakash and the applicant who both were contestants for the post of Block Pramukh. The applicant won the election and was appointed Block Pramukh. The informant lost the elections. However, with the applicant now incarcerated in jail the informant has become the Block Pramukh. It has also argued that the deceased was chronic sugar patient suffering from Diabetes and used to administer Insulin injection in the stomach to control it. It appears that the himself injected high dosage of the insulin which resulted in his death. It is next argued that criminal antecedents of six cases have been duly explained in Para 17 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. In all the above cases the applicant has been enlarged on bail. It 3 BAIL No. 25132 of 2025 has also been argued that charge sheet against the applicant has been filed on
20.06.2025 and cognizance has also been taken on 21.06.2025. The custodial interrogation is no more required. Hence bail has been prayed for. Per contra, Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, learned AAG/Senior counsel appearing for the State in opposition to the bail plea has argued that the deceased has been done to death in a planned manner by resorting to a noval method of commission of the crime. The statement of the prosecution witness corroborate the FIR version particularly as regards the manner in which the crime has been committed. The statements cannot be brushed aside at this stage of the proceedings. The FSL Report dated 25.06.2025 reveals that the deceased was administered Arsenic Poison. It is further argued that there is sufficient material evidence collected against the applicant to establish his complicity in the alleged crime. The applicant with a view to clear all opposition to the post of Block Pramuksh in a planned manner carried out the murder of the deceased. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima-facie, involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence. In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case. September 22, 2025 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad