Rahul Kumar vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27679 of 2025

Rahul Kumar

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mohit Singh, Ravi Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 70

¶6

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶7

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

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. was lodged against two named and two unknown persons. The allegation made in the F.I.R. is that both two named accused and two unknown persons assaulted the informants' family members with lathi-danda and iron rod. In the alleged incident three persons sustained injuries. These three injured sustained total eleven injuries out of which four are lacerated wounds. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. All the three injured in their statements have assigned general role of assaulting to the applicant and no specific role has been assigned to him, rather specific role of assaulting by brick has been assigned to the co-accused Anita. Thus, it is argued that being general allegation against the applicant and in absence of assignment of specific role or specific weapon, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to party bandi and ulterior motive.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

¶9

BAIL No. 27679 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 06.06.2025, with no criminal history.

¶12

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.

¶13

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Rahul Kumar, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 229 of 2025, under Sections 109, 115(2), 351(2), 352, 191(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Didauli, District- Amroha, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶21

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶22

September 19, 2025

¶23

Mustaqeem.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Pawan Kumar vs State of U.P.

Lucky @ Akshandra vs State of U.P.

Jugesh Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P.

Smt. Maya Devi vs State of U.P.

Dheeraj Gautam vs State of U.P.

Lokpal Singh Alias Pappi Raja vs State of U.P. and 3 Others