Allowed

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Oct 2025BAIL/31961/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted; Allahabad High Court; Santosh Rai, J.; 28-10-2025; Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P.; Bail Application 31961 of 2025; Case Crime No. 104 of 2025; Sections 316(5), 336(3), 340(2), 338 BNS; P.S. Lohata, Varanasi; Bank of Baroda cashier; alleged misappropriation Rs. 2,67,206/-; custody since 7.6.2025; charge-sheet filed; no antecedents; Article 21; Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcem

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed: applicant Sandeep Kumar 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 t

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31961 of 2025

Sandeep Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ratnesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed, today in Court, on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Sandeep Kumar seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.104 of 2025, under Sections 316(5), 336(3), 340(2), 338 B.N.S., Police Station Lohata, District Varanasi.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is languishing in jail since 7.6.2025. It is submitted that the applicant was posted as a cashier in bank of baroda. It is further submitted that Rs.2,67,206/- was said to be misappropriated by applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that he is not aware about the fact that whether any departmental inquiry was instituted against the applicant and the aforesaid amount was recovered from applicant or not. It is further argued that applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is lastly submitted that since charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long 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.

¶11

BAIL No. 31961 of 2025

¶12

¶13

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail but could not dispute the aforesaid submission.

¶14

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 the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC) LawSuit 677 and 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 personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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 BNS.

¶18

(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 applicant fails 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.

¶19

(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 B.N.S.S. 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

¶20

BAIL No. 31961 of 2025

¶21

¶22

as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23