Sanjeev Kumar vs State of U.P.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Sanjeev Kumar seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.191 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S., P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that accused applicant and other accused persons who are named in the first information report have taken huge amount from the informant in lieu of providing job in the police department. The details regarding payment of amount have been clearly mentioned in the F.I.R.. He further submitted that the applicant is said to be actual beneficiary of Rs.2 lac and same amount has been received through U.P.I. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that some items i.e. police robe, shoes etc. were prepared regarding appointment of police but no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. Regarding the fact that what kind of forged document was prepared particularly by the applicant in this case has not been specified. It is further argued that applicant is in jail since 02.08.2025. It is submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. 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.

¶11

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

¶12

BAIL No. 37265 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

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, 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 heavy 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.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

November 19, 2025 Asha

¶24

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶25

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

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev 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

Amlesh Singh vs State of U.P.

Asif @ Faizan @ Katilaiya vs State of U.P.

Vikas Yadav vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Kumar Kashyap vs State of U.P.

Rakesh vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev @ Monu vs State of U.P.