Raj Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

Raj Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Raj Kumar Gautam to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; in case of breach, the prosecution may move a bail cancellation application before this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, who was not named in the first information report and whose name surfaced through a police-custody disclosure by co-accused Pintu Pasi, is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2024 during the pendency of trial, claiming parity with the co-accused already granted bail.

Court's answer

This Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report.

Ratio / Principle

The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Pintu Pasi in police custody (recorded by this Court as a prima facie fact bearing on the bail decision).

Key takeaways

Considering that co-accused Pintu Pasi has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench, that the applicant has remained confined for more than three months, that after submission of the charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and that no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged, would tamper with evidence, delay the trial or intimidate witnesses, this Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, holds the applicant entitled to be enlarged on bail.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vivek Varma, J.), by order dated October 15, 2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 30900 of 2025, granted bail under Section 483 BNSS to Raj Kumar Gautam, accused in Case Crime No. 11 of 2024 under Sections 396, 412, 420, 467, 468, 471, 427 IPC (Police Station Nawabganj, District Prayagraj). Prima facie, the applicant was not named in the FIR; his name was disclosed by co-accused Pintu Pasi in police custody, and Pintu Pasi had already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 04.03.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7453 of 2025. With the applicant confined since 10.07.2025 (over three months), the charge sheet submitted, no prospect of early trial conclusion, and no reasonable apprehension raised by the State of tampering with evidence, delaying the trial or intimidating witnesses, the Court — without commenting on merits — held the applicant entitled to bail on parity. He was directed to be released on a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount, subject to appearing on fixed dates, not tampering with prosecution evidence, and not pressurizing prosecution witnesses; breach entitles the prosecution to move a bail cancellation application before this Court.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30900 of 2025

Raj Kumar Gautam

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ramesh Kumar Dwivedi, Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.S.Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2024, under Sections 396, 412, 420, 467, 468, 471, 427 IPC, Police Station Nawabganj, District Prayagraj during the pendency of trial.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-accused Pintu Pasi in police custody. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. Co-accused Pintu Pasi has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.03.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7453 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 15 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 10.07.2025 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first

BAIL No. 30900 of 2025

2

information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the coaccused Pintu Pasi in police custody. Co-accused Pintu Pasi has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant Raj Kumar Gautam, involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

October 15, 2025

Lbm/-

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad