Raubi Kumar Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29679 of 2025

Raubi Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Prem Shankar, Sushma Soni
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Raubi Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.20 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 3(5) B.N.S. and 66(D) I.T. Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused applicant is languishing in jail since 24.4.2025. Accused applicant is not named in the FIR and his name came into light during the course of investigation on the basis of whats-app chatting of co-accused Dheeraj Paswan. It is submitted that the applicant has not participated in commissioning of the offence but his role is only of depositing the amount and he is not the actual beneficiary. It is further submitted that the co-accused Dheeraj Paswan has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.9.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.28563 of 2025. It is lastly submitted that applicant has one criminal history to his credit which has been explained in supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but could not dispute the aforesaid submissions.

¶11

BAIL No. 29679 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(v) 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 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.

¶19

BAIL No. 29679 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21