Allowed

Ranjeet v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2025BAIL/1435/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Balances Jain J. allowed bail to Ranjeet in a trial court reference for theft and organized crime under the new BNS. The court held that without cogent evidence, prior charges for organized crime and criminal antecedents alone do not justify denying bail.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Ranjeet on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions of appearance and non-interference.

Ranjeet vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24313

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1435 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ranjeet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 702 of 2024, under Sections 35, 106 BNSS & 317 (5), 111(2) BNS, Police Station Shikohababad, District Firozabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a case of theft but applicant has also been challaned for offence under section 111 BNS i.e. organized crime but there is absolutely no evidence against him with regard to the offence of organized crime.

¶9

He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of two other cases but merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, it cannot be said that applicant is the member of the syndicate and he used to commit organized crime.

¶10

He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 18.11.2024.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶13

However from the record, it reflects that when applicant and

¶14

others were arrested then from their possession, stolen articles were recovered and on the basis of recovery it reflects that applicant has also been challaned for offence under section 111 BNS i.e. organized crime. The manner in which applicant has been challaned for offence under section 111 BNS, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that without any cogent evidence applicant has also been challaned for the offence under section 111 BNS and it is only a case of theft.

¶15

Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of two other cases, but this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that merely on the basis of previous criminal history of two cases, it cannot be said that applicant indulged in the commission of organized crime.

¶16

Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 18.11.2024.

¶17

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant- Ranjeet, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶24

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶25

Order Date :- 19.2.2025

¶26

Ankita

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranjeet v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Prasad Rajak vs State of U.P.

Imran vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home U.P.(Lucknow)

Rajaram vs State of U.P.

Munazir Husain vs State of U.P.

Munna Kampat vs State of U.,P.

Rahul Alias Vijay Bahadur vs State of U.P.