Allowed¶¶18

Kamal Kutil v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Bail – grant of

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2025BAIL/10763/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10763 of 2025, decided November 13, 2025 by Karunesh Singh Pawar, J. Kamal Kutil v. State of U.P.: bail granted in Case Crime/FIR No. 559 of 2025 under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) BNS, P.S. Para, District Lucknow, alleging purchase of 9 stolen E-rickshaw batteries; grounds — no independent witness to recovery, chargesheet filed, no criminal antecedents, custody since 03.08.2025, five F.I.R.s on one arrest; release on personal bond and two sureties with standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Kamal Kutil to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions imposed by the court. ¶¶18

Kamal Kutil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Kamal Kutil, alleged of purchasing 9 stolen batteries of E-rickshaw in Case Crime/FIR No. 559 of 2025 (P.S. Para, District Lucknow), should be enlarged on bail.

¶¶12

Court's answer

Considering the nature of allegations, the absence of an independent witness to the said recovery, the filing of the chargesheet, the applicant having no previous criminal antecedents, his custody since 03.08.2025, and five F.I.R.s registered on one arrest, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court found it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed; the applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; no inducement, threat or promise; undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; presence before trial court on each date; consequences under Section 82 Cr.P.C./Section 84 BNSS proclamation and Section 174-A IPC/Section 209 BNS in case of misuse of liberty of bail).

¶¶18

Key takeaways

It is clarified that the observations made in the order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.obiter¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — grant of — applicant alleged of purchasing nine stolen E-rickshaw batteries; one recovery led to registration of five F.I.R.s against him; Case Crime/FIR No. 559 of 2025 under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) B.N.S., Police Station Para, District Lucknow; factors weighed: no independent witness to the recovery, chargesheet filed, no previous criminal antecedents, in jail since 03.08.2025, five F.I.R.s on one arrest; bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties each in like amount with conditions (including consequences under Section 82 Cr.P.C./Section 84 BNSS and Section 174-A IPC/Section 209 BNS on misuse); expressly ordered without expressing any opinion on merits and observations confined to the bail application.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10763 of 2025

¶3

Kamal Kutil

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vishun Narain, Sushant Kumar Kabir Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 15

¶7

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶9

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

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of one recovery, five cases have been registered against the applicant. He submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery of 9 batteries of E- rickshaw. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 03.08.2025.

¶11

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 liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the allegation against the applicant is of purchasing 9 stolen batteries of E- rickshaw, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the fact that there is no independent witness to the said recovery; the fact that chargesheet has been filed; the fact that the applicant has no

¶14

BAIL No. 10763 of 2025

¶15

¶16

previous criminal antecedents and is languishing is in jail i.e. since 03.08.2025; the fact that on one arrest, five F.I.Rs have been registered against the applicant 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.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant Kamal Kutil , involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 559 of 2025, Under Sections- 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Para, DistrictLucknow, 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶25

BAIL No. 10763 of 2025

¶26

¶27

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.

¶28

November 13, 2025 DiVYa

¶29

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ARTI MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kamal Kutil v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kutil v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Maan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Aayush @ Bauva Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rahul Mandal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Deepak Pal Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Liyakat Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Chandan Sharma @ Chandan Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another