Aman Kumar Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33887 of 2025

Aman Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 149 of 2025, under Sections 351(3), 318(4), 111(2)(b), 3(5) B.N.S., Police Station-Cyber Crime, District -Agra, during the pendency of trial.

Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-accused Haider and Abdur Kadir while in police custody. The said statements, insofar as they implicate the applicant, are unreliable. False recovery of Rs.180 and a mobile phone has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered mobile cannot be linked with the present offence. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any illicit transaction. The case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of co-accused Haider, Vishnu M. Nayar, Bharadwaj Yogesh Bhai, Hiral Kumar and Atul Kumar Patel. It is next contended that the applicant is not a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. The co-accused Abdul Kadir, who was arrested at the spot, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.34821 of 2025. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 15.8.2025 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the

BAIL No. 33887 of 2025

2

said liberty.

Learned AGA has 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 name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-accused Haider and Abdur Kadir while in police custody; there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery and the co-accused Abdul Kadir, who was arrested at the spot, has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost two months and 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 Aman Kumar , 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.