Brijesh Kumar Trigunayat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3835 of 2025

¶3

Brijesh Kumar Trigunayat

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.	Home Lko.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Manoj Kumar Yadav : G.A.	Yadav,	Shiv Kumar

¶6

Court No. - 15

¶7

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.0016 of 2025 under Sections 309(4), 317(2) and 317 (4) of BNS P.S. Shreedattganj, district Balrampur.

¶10

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on the foreign liquor shop of the complainant at 8.45 p.m. two persons came there on motorcycle and they showed a gun to the salesman and took away Rs.18,000/- and his mobile phone.

¶11

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the FIR. No identification parade has been conducted. Nothing has been recovered from the applicant. Name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused person Shubham Kumar Tiwari. From the applicant, Rs.1500/- and two mobile phones have been recovered which are not connected with the offence. Applicant has explained criminal history of eight cases in para-10 of the bail application.

¶12

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the

¶13

BAIL No. 3835 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

liberty of bail.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶17

Considering the fact that charge sheet has been filed and the fact that the applicant is in jail i.e. since 04.03.2025 and name of applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused after fifteen days of the incident 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.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant Brijesh Kumar Trigunayat involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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 in accordance with law.

¶25

(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

¶26

BAIL No. 3835 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

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).

¶29

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.

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

November 26, 2025

¶32

Renu/-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Brijesh Kumar Trigunayat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar Trigunayat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suleman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sanjay Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Satish Kumr Thru. His Father Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Tausif Raza vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Shiv Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Brijesh Kumar Trigunayat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.