Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85631

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17551 of 2025

Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ambuj Pandey,Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶6

The instant bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of applicant for bail in Case Crime No.26 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station - Bharthana, District - Etawah.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent person and has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motive. As per prosecution story, applicant is the marginal witness of the alleged sale deed. It is also submitted that there are no more financial transaction in the account of applicant. It is also submitted that applicant is the man of clean antecedents and he has no previous criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 31.03.2025.

¶8

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, it is prayed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant that applicant may be released on bail in the aforesaid crime. It is undertaken by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions as imposed by this Court.

¶9

Per contra , learned AGA vehemently opposed the bail

¶10

application of applicant, but he has not contradicted the facts as stated by learned counsel for the applicant during arguments.

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant, Sri Vijay Kumar Rathi, learned State Law Officer appearing on behalf of the State, perused the contents made in bail application and material available on record.

¶12

I have gone through the contents made in the bail application as well as the documents appended with the bail application and perused the affidavit. It is admitted fact that applicant is the marginal witness of alleged sale deed; applicant is the man of clean antecedents and he has no previous criminal history; applicant is languishing in jail since 31.03.2025, there is no possibility of completion of trial in near future and there is no material brought by learned AGA to establish that if applicant would be enlarged on bail he will influence the trial or the witnesses.

¶13

Taking into consideration all the entirety of the matter as discussed above, without expressing any finding or opinion on merits of the case, the applicant is releasing on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant - Brijesh Kumar , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) 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.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Atul

¶20

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

Brijesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

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