Shanton Yadav @ Santosh Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 3(5), 109, 115(2), 209, 269
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 82
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 84
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. The accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR/Case Crime No.115 of 2025 under Section 109, 115(2), 3(5) of BNS,2023, Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 05.05.2025, the son of the complainant's maternal uncle had gone to Village Tuniatar Majra Kasthuni West, Police Station Musafirkhana, District Amethi, to attend the wedding of his uncle's daughter. There, he had an altercation with the applicant and co-accused Sunil Kumar Yadav and Shailendra Yadav, which resulted into a fight. It is further alleged that the applicant exhorted Shailendra Yadav to shoot the injured, whereupon Shailendra Yadav fired at the injured with his pistol. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the role assigned to the applicant is limited to exhortation, and the act of firing has not been attributed to the applicant.
The applicant has no previous criminal history. It is further submitted that the applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation. It is also submitted that co-accused Sunil Kumar Yadav, who was also assigned the role of exhortation, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6353 of 2025, Sunil Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. The applicant, therefore, claims parity with the co-accused Sunil Kumar Yadav. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that the investigation is pending. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record so also the statement of the injured and the injury report. On due consideration of the fact that the role assigned to the applicant is similar to that of the co-accused who has already been granted bail by this Court, and further considering that the applicant is in jail since 07.05.2025, has no previous criminal history, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Operative part
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. Let the applicant Shanton Yadav @ Santosh Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS)is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 3(5), 109, 115(2), 209, 269; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 84.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 15 Jul 2025. The bench was KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.