Shailendra Kumar vs State of U.P.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶10

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Shailendra Kumar seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.0150 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 109, 352, 351(2) B.N.S., P.S. Achhlada, District Auraiya.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not caused any injury to the injured in this case. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to village party bandi. He further submitted that main role has been assigned to the co-accused Manish in the statement of eye witness Smt. Pinki and the injured Smt. Pushpa Devi. Both witnesses stated specifically that co-accused Manish has caused firearm injury to the injured with intention to kill the informant. The injured Smt. Pushpa Devi sustained injury on her chest and fell down. The medical evidence corroborates the fact that injured sustained firearm injury. No specific or separate role has been assigned to the applicant. It is argued that applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 26.08.2025. 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.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. It is submitted that charge-sheet has already

¶13

BAIL No. 35324 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

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 paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677 , dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SSC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶20

(iv) 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 of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶21

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly in accordance with law.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.

¶23

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

November 21, 2025 Asha

¶25

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shailendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivkumar Bind vs State of U. P.

Mrs. Mamta Pal vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P.

Rihan vs State of U.P.

Jwala Yadav Alias Ranjeet Yadav vs State of U.P.

Lakhan vs State of U.P.