The Allahabad High Court has refused bail to Jaysheel Tiwari, a Head Constable charged with murder and conspiracy in the custodial death of a 24-year-old man in Jaunpur, holding that his abscondence during investigation and trial, and the gravity of custodial deaths, left no ground for bail.
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of Head Constable Jaysheel Tiwari, an accused in the CBI’s case over the custodial death of Krishna Yadav alias Pujari, a 24-year-old resident of Chakmirzapur in Jaunpur district [Jaysheel Tiwari v. Union of India].
Justice Samit Gopal, in a common judgment delivered on September 30, 2026 after reserving it on September 14, decided four connected bail applications by co-accused in the case. The charges are yet to be proved at trial, and the Court’s observations were made only for the purpose of deciding bail.
Background of the case
The FIR was lodged on February 12, 2021 at Police Station Baksa, Jaunpur, by the deceased’s brother, Ajay Kumar Yadav, against the then Station Officer of Baksa, the Special Operations Group (SOG) team of Jaunpur and other policemen. It alleged that the police took Krishna Yadav from near his home on February 11, 2021, although no criminal case was pending against him, that policemen later broke into the family’s house and took away Rs 60,000 and other articles, and that he was brought back at night unable to stand, pleading with his mother to save him. The next morning the family learnt that he had died in police custody.
The police version was that he was arrested at about 10:25 pm on February 11 after a motorcycle accident and assault by passers-by, and that he was found dead on arrival at the district hospital. The post-mortem recorded three contusions and gave the cause of death as shock and syncope due to ante-mortem myocardial infarction, an opinion the State Medico Legal Cell later qualified, saying the shock could have been precipitated by ante-mortem injuries, especially the larger ones not checked at post-mortem.
On September 8, 2021, a Division Bench of the High Court, hearing the informant’s writ petition, transferred the investigation to the CBI. It had observed that the police account and general diary entries appeared prima facie false and that the post-mortem report and hospital slip appeared to have been managed. The CBI registered its own FIR on September 17, 2021 and filed a chargesheet on February 22, 2022 against 11 police personnel, including the then Station Officer Ajay Kumar Singh, and the Special Judge, CBI, Lucknow framed charges on September 18, 2024 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Sections 330 and 331 read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 120-B read with Section 218 IPC. The prosecution proposes to examine 93 witnesses, of whom 11 have been examined.
Submissions
Appearing for Jaysheel Tiwari, Senior Advocate Durgesh Kumar Singh argued that the CBI had dropped Section 394 IPC from the chargesheet and the charges, showing that the genesis of the prosecution case was not borne out; that co-accused Rajan Singh had been granted bail by a coordinate Bench on November 4, 2025; that the applicant has no criminal history and has been in jail since November 19, 2022; and that with only 11 of 93 witnesses examined, the trial would take long.
The CBI and the first informant opposed the plea. They pointed out that the case is one of custodial death with police officials as accused, that the Supreme Court had cancelled the bail of co-accused Jitendra Singh on March 12, 2024, and that Tiwari did not join the investigation, was subjected to proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC, did not appear before the trial court despite repeated notices, and was arrested only on November 19, 2022. They also said the informant has repeatedly expressed fear of threats from accused police officers, and that Tiwari, if released, could tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses and abscond.
The Supreme Court’s stricter approach
The High Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s order in Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., in which bail granted to Jitendra Singh, another accused in the same case, was set aside on March 12, 2024. The Supreme Court had held that the usual reluctance to interfere with a bail order does not apply in such cases:
“But this criteria, while dealing with the question of granting bail, would not apply in a case of custodial death, where police officials are arraigned as accused. Such alleged offences are of grave and serious nature.”
Why bail was refused
Noting that the applicant is named in the FIR, is a police official, faces a custodial death case and that the trial is under way, the Court held that his conduct weighed decisively against him:
“The applicant being a police personnel absconded during investigation and proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. & u/s 83 Cr.P.C. were drawn against him. He even absconded from the trial and then was subsequently arrested. This clearly shows his conduct of not co-operating in the investigation and trial and also likelihood of his again absconding. Custodial deaths have always been viewed as grave offences.”
The Court added that the bail pleas of identically placed co-accused Ramkrit Yadav and Raj Kumar Verma had earlier been rejected, on August 17, 2022 and September 6, 2022 respectively, and held that no ground for bail was made out. It nonetheless recognised the applicant’s right to a speedy trial and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, in keeping with its case routine, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either side.
The other applications
The same judgment also takes up the second bail applications of Ramkrit Yadav, a Head Constable of the Surveillance Cell, and Raj Kumar Verma, and the first bail application of Angad Prasad Chaudhary. Ramkrit Yadav, who has been in jail since November 27, 2021, argued that the trial was delayed, with only 11 of 93 witnesses examined, and that a CBI handwriting report on the questioned signatures was inconclusive. The CBI countered that his first bail plea was rejected on merits on August 17, 2022 and that no fresh ground had been shown.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling applies the Supreme Court’s stricter standard for bail to police personnel accused in a custodial death, and treats an accused officer’s abscondence during both investigation and trial as a reason to doubt that he will cooperate if released. It also shows how that standard is applied alongside the accused’s claim to a speedy trial, which the Court addressed not by granting bail but by directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings. The charges against the accused police personnel are yet to be tested at trial.
Case Title: Jaysheel Tiwari v. Union of India [Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28849 of 2024], decided together with Ramkrit Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another [No. 32338 of 2023], Raj Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and Another [No. 34114 of 2023] and Angad Prasad Chaudhary v. Union of India [No. 44460 of 2023]
Bench: Justice Samit Gopal, Allahabad High Court
Reserved On: September 14, 2026
Date of Judgment: September 30, 2026
For Jaysheel Tiwari: Durgesh Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate, with Prabha Upadhyay, Advocate
For Ramkrit Yadav: Vinay Saran, Senior Advocate, with Anand Tiwari, Advocate
For the CBI: Rahul Srivastava, Special Public Prosecutor
For the First Informant: Mohabbat Bi, Advocate, holding brief of Vineet Vikram, Advocate