Abhay Singh Yadav vs Stae Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 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 Case Crime No.569 of 2025 under Sections 109(1)/191(2)/191(3)/190/351(3)/352/238/3(5)/324(4) BNS and 30 Arms Act, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow. As per the prosecution story, on 08.10.2025 at about 11:54 p.m., the informant received a phone call from Saad, informing him that the named accused persons, along with some unknown individuals, were creating a ruckus and that he should come immediately and inform the police. During the call, Saad suddenly started shouting “Bachao, bachao,” after which the call got disconnected. When the informant reached the spot, he saw that the applicant, along with others, was assaulting Saad, Salman, Faiz, Farhan and Ziaul Haq with the intention to kill them. It is further alleged that the applicant and Sartaj Hussain fired indiscriminately, causing gunshot injuries to Faiz (on the chest), Saad (on the head), and Salman (on the hand), in addition to Salman sustaining serious head injuries inflicted with the butt of a 2 BAIL No. 10731 of 2025 weapon. The accused persons allegedly abused and threatened the family members, brandished their weapons, fired several rounds to create terror, and thereafter fled from the scene. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that cross-cases have been registered by both sides. From the side of the applicant, one person has sustained injuries, including both simple and grievous injuries, as per the medical opinion on record, which has also been filed along with the counter-affidavit by the State. It is next submitted that from the complainant’s side, three persons have received simple injuries. It is further submitted that the statements of these three injured persons could not be recorded, as according to the admitted case of the prosecution in the counter- affidavit, all of them are absconding since they are accused in Case Crime No. 371 of 2025. A specific pleading in this regard has been made in paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the site plan filed by the Investigating Officer and submits that it is the complainant side who were the aggressors. The incident took place at the door of the applicant/accused side, and the occurrence happened at about 12 o’clock in the midnight. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 09.10.2025. He has explained the criminal history of two cases in paragraph 27 of the bail application. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant; however, he does not dispute that the three injured persons are absconding. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the 3 BAIL No. 10731 of 2025 bail application and submitted that everything, right from the FIR to the injury reports of all three injured persons, is stage-managed. It is submitted that the applicant is a very influential person. In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court towards the counter-affidavit filed by the complainant. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration to the injuries received on the side of the accused do not appear to have been explained in the prosecution case; the applicant is in jail since 09.10.2025; the three injured persons from the complainant’s side prima facie received simple injuries and are absconding, as they are wanted in Case Crime No. 371 of 2025; the applicant has explained the criminal history of two cases in paragraph 27 of the bail application 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. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Abhay Singh Yadav, involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case crime number, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to 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 4 BAIL No. 10731 of 2025 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 submit an undertaking on affidavit in terms of Section 19 (4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that he will not indulge in any case for or misuse the liberty of bail. (vi) 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 Indian Penal Code (Now Section 269 of BNS). (vii) 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 20, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 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 Case Crime No.569 of 2025 under Sections 109(1)/191(2)/191(3)/190/351(3)/352/238/3(5)/324(4) BNS and 30 Arms Act, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow. As per the prosecution story, on 08.10.2025 at about 11:54 p.m., the informant received a phone call from Saad, informing him that the named accused persons, along with some unknown individuals, were creating a ruckus and that he should come immediately and inform the police. During the call, Saad suddenly started shouting “Bachao, bachao,” after which the call got disconnected. When the informant reached the spot, he saw that the applicant, along with others, was assaulting Saad, Salman, Faiz, Farhan and Ziaul Haq with the intention to kill them. It is further alleged that the applicant and Sartaj Hussain fired indiscriminately, causing gunshot injuries to Faiz (on the chest), Saad (on the head), and Salman (on the hand), in addition to Salman sustaining serious head injuries inflicted with the butt of a 2 BAIL No. 10731 of 2025 weapon. The accused persons allegedly abused and threatened the family members, brandished their weapons, fired several rounds to create terror, and thereafter fled from the scene. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that cross-cases have been registered by both sides. From the side of the applicant, one person has sustained injuries, including both simple and grievous injuries, as per the medical opinion on record, which has also been filed along with the counter-affidavit by the State. It is next submitted that from the complainant’s side, three persons have received simple injuries. It is further submitted that the statements of these three injured persons could not be recorded, as according to the admitted case of the prosecution in the counter- affidavit, all of them are absconding since they are accused in Case Crime No. 371 of 2025. A specific pleading in this regard has been made in paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the site plan filed by the Investigating Officer and submits that it is the complainant side who were the aggressors. The incident took place at the door of the applicant/accused side, and the occurrence happened at about 12 o’clock in the midnight. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 09.10.2025. He has explained the criminal history of two cases in paragraph 27 of the bail application. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant; however, he does not dispute that the three injured persons are absconding. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the 3 BAIL No. 10731 of 2025 bail application and submitted that everything, right from the FIR to the injury reports of all three injured persons, is stage-managed. It is submitted that the applicant is a very influential person. In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court towards the counter-affidavit filed by the complainant. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. On due consideration to the injuries received on the side of the accused do not appear to have been explained in the prosecution case; the applicant is in jail since 09.10.2025; the three injured persons from the complainant’s side prima facie received simple injuries and are absconding, as they are wanted in Case Crime No. 371 of 2025; the applicant has explained the criminal history of two cases in paragraph 27 of the bail application 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. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Abhay Singh Yadav, involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case crime number, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to 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 4 BAIL No. 10731 of 2025 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 submit an undertaking on affidavit in terms of Section 19 (4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that he will not indulge in any case for or misuse the liberty of bail. (vi) 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 Indian Penal Code (Now Section 269 of BNS). (vii) 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 20, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench