Bhupendra Verma vs State of U.P.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Bhupendra Verma seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.154 of 2024, under Section 331(4), 305, 317(2)(4)(5) B.N.S., Police Station Dakor, District Jalaun.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence of forgery etc as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 11.9.2025. It is submitted that initially the FIR was registered as unknown and after eleven months of registration of FIR the applicant was arrested on the basis of statement of co-accused. It is further submitted that only Rs.4550/- and one android mobile were said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant but the mobile phone is not mentioned in the FIR as a looted item. It is argued that it cannot be ascertained whether the recovery of the aforesaid amount belongs to the present incident or not and no incriminating thing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is further argued that no independent and reliable witness was present on spot at the time of preparation of recovery memo and arrest. It is contended that other co-accused persons Ashish Rajput @ Anshu, Pradip Kumar Soni and Chandrapal @ Chandu having the same role have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 30.7.2025, 22.8.2025, 9.9.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.24395 of 2025,

¶11

BAIL No. 36267 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

22610 of 2025, 24291 of 2025 respectively. It is further argued that the applicant has criminal history of five cases which have been explained in para 20 of the bail application. 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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

¶20

BAIL No. 36267 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC/209 of BNS.

¶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 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 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.

¶26

October 17, 2025 RA

¶27

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhupendra Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra Verma 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

Rohitdas vs State of U.P.

Firoz vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kalariya vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Satish Kumar Chaubey vs State of U.P.

Najir Ali vs State of U.P.