Arun Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141261

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26645 of 2025

Applicant :- Arun Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Singh,Sudhir Kumar Rai,Sukhvir Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Sukhvir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Brijendra Kumar, learned AGA for the State-Respondent and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been moved on behalf of accusedapplicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 382 of 2025, under Sections 111, 318(4) 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case crime number. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the FIR has been registered with some delay of which no satisfactory explanation has been submitted. He submits that the allegation with regard to illegal storage of fertilizer along with the co-accused is false. The applicant is owner of the shop, where the alleged fertilizers were being stored. In fact, the applicant had given his shop on rent to the co-accused Ahmad, Parmar Kamlesh and Thakur Pintu Ji and the applicant himself was not running any business in that shop. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is no any independent witness of the alleged incident and due to ulterior motive he has been falsely implicated. He submits that offence under Section 111 of B.N.S. is not made out against the applicant as no charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant in any previous criminal case, as such Section 111 of the B.N.S. is not attracted in the present case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.07.2025. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, the bail has been prayed for.

¶10

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail, but could not dispute the above submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima-facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the accused-applicant, Arun Rajpoot, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶14

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶15

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶16

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶17

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶18

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.8.2025 pks

¶20

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

Arun Rajpoot v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Rajpoot 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