Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43596 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6938 of 2025 Applicant :- Umesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Sinha,Ram Chandra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.84 of 2025 under Section 140(1) BNS (364 IPC), 351 (3) BNS (506 IPC), Police Station Rahimabad, Lucknow. 3. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that Anita, the younger sister of Shanti, is married to Rakesh Yadav. The victim, Surendra Yadav, is the brother-in-law of Rakesh. It is alleged that Rakesh suspected an illicit relationship between Surendra and his wife Shanti. Due to this suspicion and a land dispute involving the family, Rakesh Yadav allegedly threatened to kill Surendra and wanted that he leave Malkhapur. 4. It is further alleged that on 28.05.2025, five named accused persons arrived in Malkhapur in a white Bolero vehicle and in the presence of Nekpal they forcibly kidnapped Surendra from his house with the alleged intent to murder him. It is also alleged that negotiations for the release of Surendra were made through the mobile phone of Nekpal. After the incident, Sunita, wife of Surendra, informed the complainant over the phone, following which the complainant reached Malkhapur, searched for Surendra, and reported the matter to the police. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged victim, Surendra Yadav, himself reached the police station within two hours of the alleged incident, which falsifies the allegation of kidnapping. Allegation in the FIR that negotiations for his release were made through Nekpal’s mobile is also false, as is evident from the statement of Nekpal dated 12.06.2025 recorded under Section 161 CrPC, which is part of the case record. It is submitted that the allegation of ransom has been made only to aggravate the seriousness of the offence. 6. At most, the incident amounts to a case of simple assault, as the victim has sustained only minor injuries in the form of contusions. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Furthermore, all the co-accused persons are family members. Rakesh Yadav is the brother-in-law of the victim; the applicant is the maternal uncle of the victim; co-accused Ram Gopal is the father of the victim; and Veerpal and Balram are his uncles. In view of the admitted facts of the prosecution, no case under Section 141 of the BNS is made out. 7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record. 9. On due consideration to the statement of the Nekpal, the fact that the victim himself appeared at the police station within two hours of the incident, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the applicant, co- accused, and the victim all belong to the same family, as well as the fact that the applicant is in jail since 30.05.2025, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant Umesh 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 :- 29.7.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench