Mahipati @ Raj Bahadur vs State of U.P.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Mahipati @ Raj Bahadur with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.24 of 2025, under Section 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 121(1), 132, 109, 310(2), 3(5), 118(1), 121(2) B.N.S. and 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Police Station Nasirpur, District- Firozabad, during pendency of trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. Accused applicant is languishing in jail since 24.3.2025. It is submitted that seven persons alongwith 30-40 unknown persons are named in the FIR. No specific or separate role has been assigned to the applicant either in the FIR or in the statements of the injured. It is further submitted that all the three injured persons have stated in their statements regarding general role and involvement of the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is argued that other co-accused person having same role namely, Chandresh @ Chhotu has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 8.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12529 of 2025. It is further argued that the applicant has 20 criminal history to his credit which has been explained in para 27 of the bail application. Submission is that there is no

¶12

BAIL No. 26379 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that no firearm injury has been sustained by any of the injured persons.

¶16

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677 , considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶18

(ii) 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 Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 of BNS.

¶20

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of BNSS is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC/209 of BNS.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the

¶22

BAIL No. 26379 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of BNSS 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.

¶25

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

¶26

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶27

September 18, 2025 RA

¶28

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahipati @ Raj Bahadur v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahipati @ Raj Bahadur 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sangam Yadav Alias Shubham vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravindra vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Kumar vs State of U.P.

Shubham Tripathi vs Union of India

Sonu Yadav vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Sartaj vs State of U.P.