Bhopendra Alias Bhopey vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bhopendra Alias Bhopey vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted: the applicant to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order; subject to conditions that (i) the applicant shall not tamper with evidence, and (ii) he shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S., deliberate absence being liable to be treated as abuse of the liberty of bail; breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether Bhopendra alias Bhopey, the applicant in Case Crime No. 536 of 2024 (under Sections 70(1), 61(2), 318(2), 127(2), 317(2), 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 67 I.T. Act, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Agra), is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Taking into account the absence of a test identification parade of the applicant under Section 7 of B.S.A., the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and the settled law of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil and Manish Sisodia, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

Ratio / Principle

In deciding the bail application the Court confined itself to prima facie satisfaction, in line with the Niranjan Singh standard (avoidance of detailed examination of evidence and exhaustive exploration of merits at the bail stage), and expressly declined to express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key takeaways

It was made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12033 of 2025 (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:58414), Order Date 21.4.2025 - Bail ALLOWED to applicant Bhopendra alias Bhopey in Case Crime No. 536 of 2024, under Sections 70(1), 61(2), 318(2), 127(2), 317(2), 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra, during pendency of trial. Defence: applicant not named in FIR, name surfaced only in statement of co-accused (asserted to have no evidentiary value) and subsequently in witness statements; no test identification parade conducted as per Section 7 of B.S.A.; no criminal history; in jail since 22.11.2024. A.G.A.'s opposition: applicant alleged to be the videographer of the act, hence not visible in the video. Court, adopting the Niranjan Singh (AIR 1980 SC 785) standard that only prima facie satisfaction - not exhaustive exploration of merits - is required at the bail stage, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (2022 INSC 690) and Manish Sisodia (2024 INSC 595), found a case for bail without expressing any opinion on merits. Release ordered on personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount (sureties to be pre-verified), subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence and personal presence at opening of case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S.; breach a ground for cancellation; observations expressly stated not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58414

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12033 of 2025

Applicant :- Bhopendra Alias Bhopey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Raj Singh,Piyush Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

List has been revised.

Heard Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.536 of 2024, under Sections 70(1), 61(2), 318(2), 127(2), 317(2), 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. His name has come up in the statement of co-accused person only, which has no evidentiary value. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no test identification parade conducted of the applicant as per Section 7 of B.S.A., as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was the person who had videographed the said act, as such, he was not visible in the said video, although his name has come up in the subsequent statements of several witnesses, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have

the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that there is no test identification parade conducted of the applicant as per Section 7 of B.S.A., and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

Let the applicant- Bhopendra Alias Bhopey , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

Order Date :- 21.4.2025

(Ravi Kant)

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad