Allowed¶18

Pramod Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2025BAIL/26054/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Ashutosh Srivastava, J.; bail allowed; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26054 of 2025; Pramod Sharma v. State of U.P.; section 483 BNSS 2023; Section 3(1) UP Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Section 19(4) Gangsters Act; clause (b) Section 2 Gangsters Act; Section 313 Cr.P.C.; Case Crime No. 49 of 2025; P.S. Kampil; District Farrukhabad; gangster Act bail; personal bond and two sureties; bail conditions; no opinion on merits; decided October 9, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Accused-applicant Pramod Sharma to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the five conditions enumerated in the order; breach of conditions to be ground for cancellation of bail.

Pramod Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Pramod Sharma should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2025 under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, during pendency of trial.

¶10

Court's answer

On considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from the record, and taking into consideration Section 19(4) of the Gangsters Act, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the court found it a fit case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The accused-applicant is to be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions: no inducement/threat/promise to dissuade witnesses or tamper with evidence; no pressurising or intimidating prosecution witnesses; personal presence before the trial court at opening of case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; undertaking not to seek adjournments on evidence dates when witnesses are present; and presence before the trial court on each fixed date personally or through counsel. Breach of any condition shall be ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Key takeaways

Anything said in the order is limited to the purpose of determining the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits; the trial court remains absolutely free to arrive at its own independent conclusions on the evidence.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted under section 483 BNSS, 2023 to the applicant in a case under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Case Crime No. 49 of 2025, P.S. Kampil, District Farrukhabad). Considering the totality of facts, the nature of and evidence reflected from the record, and the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act, and expressly without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court held it a fit case for bail. Release directed on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount, subject to conditions barring inducement/tampering with witnesses and evidence, requiring presence at opening of case, framing of charge and Section 313 Cr.P.C. recording, an undertaking against adjournments when witnesses are present, and presence on each fixed date; breach of conditions to be ground for cancellation. The order is confined to the bail determination and does not touch the merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26054 of 2025

¶3

Pramod Sharma

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 68

¶7

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record.

¶9

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shashank Singh, Brief Holder for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶10

The present bail application under section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2025, under Section 3(1) Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Kampil, District Farrukhabad, during pendency of the trial.

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. Criminal history of the applicant has clearly been explained in para no. 2 of the supplementary affidavit but only two cases have been shown under the Gangsters Act.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant is not a member or leader or organizer of a gang and he has not abetted or assisted in the activities of a gang as enumerated in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act. Applicant has no criminal history except the aforesaid case. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial

¶13

BAIL No. 26054 of 2025

¶14

¶15

process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 01.07.2025, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶16

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but has not pointed out any other case against the applicant except the cases shown by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the accused-applicant, Pramod Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶19

(i) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶24

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

¶25

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of

¶26

BAIL No. 26054 of 2025

¶27

¶28

determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶29

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶30

October 9, 2025

¶31

Vibha Singh

¶32

Digitally signed by :- VIBHA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pramod Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Sharma 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