Amit Garg vs State of U.P.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Amit Garg with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.432 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 411 IPC, Police Station Etmadpur, District Agra, during pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. During course of investigation the name of the applicant was surfaced on the basis of statement of the co-accused persons who were arrested. He further submitted that the applicant is not vendee, vendor or marginal witness of the so called sale deed. He is not the beneficiary of the so called transaction. During course of investigation Rs.10.5 lac are said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant but no independent and reliable witness of the recovery was present at the time of preparation of recovery memo. He further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of three cases which have been duly explained in para 23 of the bail application and is languishing in jail since 19.01.2023. Lastly it is submitted that co-accused Amit Sisodia, Vijay Bahadur, Dashrath Singh @ Neetu Yadav, Gaurav Yadav, Kuldeep Garg @ Monu, Smt. Neelam Garg have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 07.08.2023, 23.10.2024, 14.08.2025, 15.09.2025, 31.01.2025 and 14.07.2025 passed in Criminal

¶11

BAIL No. 35622 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

Misc. Bail Application Nos.12708 of 2023, 47945 of 2023, 42135 of 2024, 43315 of 2024, 40298 of 2024, 19038 of 2025 respectively. It is submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. It is further argued that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of accused applicant fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶14

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.

¶15

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; period of detention in jail, keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is allowed.

¶16

Considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, 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 a 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. 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.

¶19

BAIL No. 35622 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

(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 I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶22

(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 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail 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 I.P.C./209. B.N.S.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

(Santosh Rai,J.)

November 3, 2025

Asha

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

Amit Garg v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Garg 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

Dhananjay Giri vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra vs State of U.P.

Tahir Khan vs State of U.P.

Lalai vs State of U.P.

Vakil Nishad vs State of U.P.

Amit Dubey vs State of U.P.