Sanjeev @ Monu vs State of U.P.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Sanjeev @ Monu seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.464 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 333, 190, 191 B.N.S., Police Station T.P. Nagar, District Meerut.

¶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. Applicant is languishing in jail since 22.8.2025. It is submitted that initially the FIR was registered as unknown but during the course of investigation name of applicant has been surfaced on the basis of information given by one Ravikant and statement of Ravikant has also been recorded under Section 180 during the course of investigation in which he has stated that on the basis of CCTV footage, applicant and other co-accused persons namely, Armaan and Kapil were identified but no specific and separate role of the applicant has been assigned in the statement of Ravikant or anywhere in the case diary. It is further submitted that as per the injury report only two injuries were said to be found in which one is lacerated wound. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that co-accused Kapil has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.35081 of 2025. Further 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

¶11

BAIL No. 37377 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

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 and submits that applicant has committed a very serious offence but he admits that no any kind of grievous injury has been sustained by the informant on his vital parts.

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

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the

¶21

BAIL No. 37377 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

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 29, 2025 Asha

¶27

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶28

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

Sanjeev @ Monu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev @ Monu 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

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.

Umesh Chandra Gupta Alias Umesh Gupta vs State of U.P.