Allowed¶18

Anshul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jun 2025BAIL/18846/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anshul v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18846 of 2025, Allahabad High Court, decided 23.6.2025 (2025:AHC:98949) — bail allowed under Sections 352, 115(2), 109(1), 61(2) B.N.S., P.S. T.P. Nagar, Meerut; general-alleged role case, no criminal history urged; release on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions and cancellation liberty to informant.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Anshul on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to five enumerated conditions, with liberty to the informant to seek cancellation of bail on breach. ¶18

Anshul Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Anshul, accused in Case Crime No.144 of 2025 under Sections 352, 115(2), 109(1), 61(2) of B.N.S., P.S. T.P. Nagar, District Meerut, should be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Court's answer

On an overall view of the facts and circumstances, the nature of evidence and the absence of convincing material indicating possibility of tampering with the evidence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: not tampering with prosecution evidence; not threatening or harassing prosecution witnesses; appearing on dates fixed by the trial court; not committing a similar offence; and not inducing, threatening or promising any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure to the Court or police or tamper with evidence.

¶11

Key takeaways

In case of default of any of the enumerated bail conditions, the informant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Allahabad High Court (Court No. 67), Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J. — Applicant Anshul, accused in Case Crime No.144 of 2025 under Sections 352, 115(2), 109(1), 61(2) of B.N.S., P.S. T.P. Nagar, District Meerut, and in custody since 25.03.2025, enlarged on bail. Counsel argued a general role was assigned to all accused, the author of the injury unknown, and the applicant had no criminal history; the State opposed pre-trial adjudication of innocence. Taking an overall view of the nature of the evidence and finding no convincing material indicating possibility of tampering with evidence, the Court allowed bail on a personal bond with two local sureties of like amount, imposing standard conditions (no tampering with evidence, no threat/harassment to witnesses, appearance on fixed dates, no similar offence, no inducement to witnesses), expressly without expressing any opinion on merits, and left the informant free to move for cancellation on breach of conditions.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:98949

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18846 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Anshul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Ji Mishra,Kaushal Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the author of the injury is not known however, general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant. Learned counsel further submits perusal of the statement of the injured also goes to show that general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant. It is thus contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Learned counsel next argued that the applicant has no criminal history. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 25.03.2025.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶9

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of

¶10

tampering with the evidence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view, that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let applicant- Anshul involved in Case Crime No.144 of 2025 under Sections 352, 115(2), 109(1), 61(2) of B.N.S., Police StationT.P. Nagar, District Meerut, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶13

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶15

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶16

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the informant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶18

The bail application is allowed.

¶19

Order Date :- 23.6.2025 AdityaG

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anshul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshul 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