Arun Kumar vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

Arun Kumar vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Arun Kumar directed 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) he shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and (iii) he shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. In case of breach of any condition, the prosecution is at liberty to move a bail cancellation application before this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Arun Kumar is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 206 of 2025 under Sections 308(2), 351(2), 108 BNS, Police Station Saidnagli, District Amroha, during the pendency of trial. +1 more

Court's answer

The applicant, having no criminal antecedents, having remained confined for more than two months, with the charge-sheet submitted and no hope of early conclusion of trial, and with no reasonable apprehension brought to the fore by the State that he would tamper with evidence, delay the trial or intimidate witnesses, is entitled to be enlarged on bail, without commenting on the merits of the case.

Ratio / Principle

This Court prima facie finds that the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out against the applicant.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS in Case Crime No. 206 of 2025 under Sections 308(2), 351(2) and 108 BNS, Police Station Saidnagli, District Amroha, where the postmortem report showed death by asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Counsel for the applicant contended that the ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. were absent and relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Crl.A. No. 221 of 2025) and Laxmi Das vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. (Crl.A. No. 706 of 2017). The Court prima facie found that the necessary ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. were not made out; noted that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had been in jail since 02.08.2025 (more than two months), the charge-sheet stood submitted with no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence, delaying trial or intimidating witnesses was brought to the fore by the State. Bail was granted on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of appearance, non-tampering with prosecution evidence and non-pressurizing prosecution witnesses, with liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation on breach.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34977 of 2025

Arun Kumar

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anshu Singh, Hemendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P.Tripathi, 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. 206 of 2025, under Sections 308(2), 351(2), 108 BNS, Police Station Saidnagli, District Amroha, during the pendency of trial.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to the postmortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. As per the allegations, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025) decided on 17.01.2025 and Laxmi Das vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017) decided on 21.01.2025. The applicant is in jail since 02.08.2025 having no criminal history 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.

BAIL No. 34977 of 2025

2

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of the 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 Arun Kuamr, 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 10, 2025

Lbm/-

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