Amit vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77213

Court No. - 5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12441 of 2025

Applicant :- Amit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Mohan Pandey,Dharmendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

This is the second bail application.

¶7

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 407 of 2022 at Police Station Etmaddaulla, District Agra under Section 364, 376D, 120B IPC and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act. The applicant is in jail since 14.07.2022.

¶8

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 19.07.2023.

¶9

The following arguments made by Shri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel and Shri Dharmendra Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶10

The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial. The

¶11

applicant never influenced witnesses or tampered with the evidence.

¶12

The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the trial proceedings.

¶13

The status report sent by the trial court records that the prosecution proposes to examine 15 witnesses to bring home the charges against the applicant. All the prosecution witnesses have been examined except for the one witness namely Ruchi Rani. According to the status report, the said witness has died during the pendency of this bail application.

¶14

The material witnesses have been examined. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing the said witnesses.

¶15

Continued imprisonment of the applicant will disable him from crafting an effective defence strategy, gathering evidence in his support thereof and tendering the same before the learned trial court to absolve himself of the charges. Any further incarceration would be to the detriment of the defence of the applicant and contrary to the norms of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence.

¶16

This Court in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023) while considering the grant of enlarging an accused on bail for preparing his defence and gathering evidence to tender the same before the learned trial court for

¶17

establishing his innocence held:

¶18

"Nature and gravity of the offence is certainly liable to be considered by the court while considering grant of bail. The Court has also to factor the likelihood of whether the accused committed the offence while deciding a bail application. The court also has to determine in the facts of the case whether the accused needs to be set at liberty to frame his defence and gather evidence to refute the prosecution case and establish his innocence. The bail court has to examine whether continued incarceration would disable the accused from tendering an effective defence of his case. This is a demand of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence.

¶19

Setting an accused at liberty at large on this ground cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. The issue has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case while doing so. All relevant facts including the evidences in the record, the conduct of the accused during the investigation as well as trial have to be adverted to before a decision is made in this regard."

¶20

Considering the aforesaid parameters in light of the above facts of this case, I am of the opinion that Prabhat Gangwar (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case.

¶21

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶22

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶23

In wake of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶24

Let the applicant- Amit be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

¶25

court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶26

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶27

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶28

The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).

¶29

The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.

¶30

It is further directed that in case the applicant does not cooperate in the trial or adopt dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record a finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to this Court.

¶31

Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Vandit

¶32

Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mata Prasad Alias Gheesu vs State of U.P.

Smt. Mamta Devi and 3 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Jibrail vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Km Roshani Pal vs Chief General Manager State Bank of India and 3 Others

Dr. Vinay Mohan Chandola Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishnu @ Vishnu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another