Custodial Death Of 24-Year-Old: Allahabad HC Rejects Bail To 4 Policemen In Jaunpur Case

The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail pleas of four police personnel accused in the 2021 death of 24-year-old Krishna Kumar Yadav alias Pujari in Jaunpur, observing that the case involved a custodial death and that the material collected by the CBI did not justify their release during trial.

Justice Samit Gopal passed the order on September 30 on four connected bail applications filed by Jaysheel Tiwari, Ramkrit Yadav, Raj Kumar Verma and Angad Prasad Chaudhary. While Tiwari and Chaudhary had approached the court with their first bail applications, Yadav and Verma were seeking bail for the second time.

The order comes nearly five years after the death of Krishna, whose case had prompted repeated intervention by the high court over the investigation. The court had in 2021 transferred the probe from the state police to the CBI after expressing concern that the accused policemen were not being arrested and that the investigation could be compromised.

The 2021 Jaunpur custodial death case

According to the FIR lodged by Krishna's brother Ajay Kumar Yadav on February 12, 2021, a team of the Jaunpur SOG and the then Station House Officer of Baksa police station took Krishna from his house around 3 am on February 11.

The family alleged that Krishna was detained at the police station and that police personnel later returned to the house and took away Rs 60,000 and other articles. Around midnight, the police allegedly brought Krishna back to the house. The FIR stated that he was unable to stand, was crying for his mother to save him and saying that the policemen would kill him.

The family was subsequently informed that Krishna had died in police custody. The FIR alleged murder, robbery, trespass and intentional insult against the police personnel.

The police version, however, was that Krishna had been apprehended while riding a motorcycle, suffered injuries after the motorcycle fell, and was subsequently beaten by members of the public. He was taken for medical treatment but died before he could be admitted to the district hospital.

A judicial inquiry was conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, who recorded the statements of 16 witnesses. The inquiry, however, did not reach a conclusion.

Why was the investigation transferred to CBI?

The Allahabad High Court intervened after Krishna's brother approached it seeking a fair investigation.

In September 2021, a division bench of Justices Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Piyush Agrawal directed the CBI to take over the investigation, observing that the material on record prima facie indicated the commission of offences and alleged involvement of higher officers in protecting the accused and creating or destroying evidence.

Court said a fair investigation by the state police appeared impossible in the circumstances.

The CBI subsequently registered its own case and began investigating the allegations against the policemen.

But the agency itself came under criticism from the high court. In November 2021, a division bench comprising Justices Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Vikas Budhwar questioned why the accused policemen had not been arrested despite arrest warrants having been issued.

Court observed that more than two months had passed since the warrants were issued and described the CBI's claim that efforts were being made to trace the accused as “merely an eyewash”. It also termed the agency's affidavit “totally unsatisfactory” and directed it to execute the arrest warrants without further delay.

By December 2021, eight accused policemen had surrendered before the district court after the CBI moved for attachment of their properties.

What did CBI investigation find about Krishna's death? 

The original postmortem recorded three ante-mortem contusions, including injuries on both buttocks, the scapular region and the left arm. It attributed the cause of death to shock and syncope resulting from ante-mortem myocardial infarction.

The CBI subsequently obtained further medical opinions.

An AIIMS, New Delhi medical board found multiple blunt-force injuries on Krishna's body, including injuries not reflected in the original postmortem report. It concluded that the injuries were ante-mortem and fresh and that the cause of death was shock resulting from the cumulative effects of multiple blunt-force injuries.

The board also found no features of a new or old myocardial infarction. The Allahabad High Court, while considering the bail pleas, noted that the AIIMS opinion attributed the death to the cumulative effect of the injuries.

The CBI filed its chargesheet on February 22, 2022. Charges were subsequently framed against 11 accused on September 18, 2024 under Sections 302 read with 34, 330 read with 34, 331 read with 34 and 120-B read with 218 IPC. The prosecution has cited 93 witnesses, of whom 11 had been examined when the present bail pleas were heard.

What did the CBI allege against the four policemen?

The CBI chargesheet alleged that the accused policemen, acting in conspiracy, caused injuries to Dharmendra Yadav alias Buchu and Lalla Saroj to extract confessions and subsequently caused grievous injuries to Krishna to obtain a confession.

It further alleged that the injuries inflicted on Krishna were sufficient to cause his death and that the accused police officials created false records to make it appear that his death was the result of an accident or an assault by unknown persons rather than physical torture in police custody.

These are allegations contained in the chargesheet and are yet to be established at trial.

Why did the high court reject the four bail pleas?

For Jaysheel Tiwari, the court noted that he was named in the FIR and was a police personnel. The CBI alleged that he had not joined the investigation and that proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC had been initiated against him. Court also noted that he had subsequently absconded during the trial before being arrested.

Court said this conduct indicated non-cooperation and a likelihood of absconding again.

It also considered the Supreme Court's March 12, 2024 decision cancelling the bail granted to co-accused Jitendra Singh. The Supreme Court had held that a stricter approach was warranted where a member of the police force was accused in a custodial death case and the charge involved Section 302 IPC.

In Tiwari's case, the high court also referred to the arrest memo and corresponding general diary entry, which showed him as one of the officials involved in Krishna's arrest and as a signatory to the document.

Court observed that the injuries covered “basically the entire back side” of Krishna's body and relied on the AIIMS opinion regarding the cumulative effect of the injuries.

It said, “The present case is a case of custodial torture and death with robbery in a well planned conspiracy.”

Court further observed that the matter was not merely a case of police excess but a “clear cut case of abuse of police powers and police high handedness” and concluded that Tiwari's case was not fit for bail.

Ramakrit Yadav was seeking bail for the second time. His first bail plea had been rejected in August 2022. He relied on his prolonged custody, the fact that only 11 of 93 witnesses had been examined and an inconclusive handwriting examination report. The high court found no fresh ground to reconsider its earlier decision and rejected the plea.

Raj Kumar Verma also filed a second bail application after his first plea was rejected in September 2022. He sought parity with co-accused Kamal Bihari Bind, who had been granted bail. The CBI, however, pointed out that bail granted to Jitendra Singh had subsequently been cancelled by the Supreme Court and that Jitendra's subsequent bail plea had also been rejected. The high court rejected Verma's plea.

Angad Prasad Chaudhary's was the other first bail application. He relied on the fact that Section 394 IPC, which appeared in the original FIR, was not included in the chargesheet or the charges, besides citing his lack of criminal history and the progress of the trial. The CBI opposed bail on the ground that he was named in the FIR and that the case involved a custodial death. His bail plea was also rejected.

The high court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and ensure that unnecessary adjournments were not granted, noting the accused's right to a speedy trial.

Case: Jaysheel Tiwari v. Union of India & Connected Matters

Bench: Justice Samit Gopal

Order Date: September 30, 2026