Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Vinod Kumar Yadav @ Vinod Yadav vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 13 March, 2026
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2162/2026)
VINOD KUMAR YADAV @ VINOD APPELLANT(S)
YADAV
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
1. The appellant, is aggrieved by the denial of bail by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, especially
noticing the two grievous firearm injuries sustained by
the victim and also taking note of the observations made
by the Trial Court that the defence is attempting to
purposefully delay the trial.
2. Mr.Shoeb Alam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant points out that despite the statement that the
appellant shot at the victim in the FIR, there are
serious
Signature Not Verified
contradictions coming out from the statements
recorded.
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2026.03.13
18:15:49 IST
Reason:
3. We were also taken through the order in the case of
1
another accused produced as Annexure P7, wherein
anticipatory bail was granted, also noticing the fact
that the main accused who were alleged with overt acts
were enlarged on bail, which grounds found in favour of
that accused, squarely applies in the case of the
appellant also.
4. The learned Government Advocate takes us to the order
sheet of the Trial Court, which specifically mentions a
riot situation in the Court premises when the trial was
being conducted. It is also submitted that it was at the
victim’s instigation that a violent crowd gathered in the
Court premises for which an FIR has been registered
against the victim. It is also pointed out that the
accused and their Counsel are not cooperating and many a
time, the Counsel were not available to cross-examine the
witnesses of the prosecution. The learned counsel
appearing for the second respondent also resists the
request for grant of bail to the appellant.
5. We notice that the appellant has been incarcerated for
more than two years and the allegation inter alia is
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The delay in the trial cannot be attributed to the
appellant herein, especially since he was in jail and the
victim also resorted to intimidation that too within the
court premises.
2
6. Looking at the totality of the circumstances, we are of
the opinion that there would be no purpose served in
continuing the incarceration of the appellant, pending
completion of the trial.
7. Accordingly, we allow the present appeal and direct
that the appellant, Vinod Kumar Yadav @ Vinod Yadav, be
released on bail in connection with FIR Case Crime No.216
of 2023 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of
IPC and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at
Police Station Bijnaur, District Lucknow.
8. The appellant shall be released on bail on such
appropriate terms and conditions as may be fixed by the
Trial Court.
9. Considering the observations made by the Trial Court as
available in the order sheet, we direct that, to avoid a
tense situation and obstruction being caused to the trial
proceedings, the learned Trial Court may at its
discretion permit the accused to appear online or allow
exemption applications, if any filed, permitting their
appearance through counsel. Insofar as the non-
cooperation of the defence counsel, we make it clear that
the Trial Court would be entitled to ensure smooth
proceedings in the trial by granting a prayer for
adjournment to cross examine a witness once and then, if
on the second occasion, none appears, close the cross
3
examination with respect to that particular accused and
proceed with the trial.
10. We clarify that we have not made any
observations/comments on the merits of the case and any
observation made in this order is meant only for the
limited purpose of grant of bail.
11. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is
allowed on the aforestated terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
………………….J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
………………….J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 13, 2026.
4
ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.12 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2162/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-12-2025
in CRMBA No. 11848/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench]
VINOD KUMAR YADAV @ VINOD YADAV Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION AND IA No. 38939/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 13-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rizwan Ahmad , AOR
Mr. Mohd Shoaib Ansari, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate General
Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR
Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv.
Ms. Sharvi Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv.
Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Vardhan Kediya, Adv.
Mr. Yashwant Singh, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
In terms of the signed order, it is directed that the
5
appellant, Vinod Kumar Yadav @ Vinod Yadav, be released on bail in
connection with FIR Case Crime No.216 of 2023 registered under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station
Bijnaur, District Lucknow.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(BABITA PANDEY) (NIKITA SINGH)
AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
6