Adarsh Rai @ Bhaiya Rai vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38453 of 2025

¶3

Adarsh Rai @ Bhaiya Rai

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Aditya Bhardwaj, Eaishita, Robin Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

1.Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. and supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant are taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Adarsh Rai @ Bhaiya Rai seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.60 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 340(2), 336(3) and 61(2) B.N.S., P.S. Kotwali, District Azamgarh.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not cheated the informant or any other person with malafide intention. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that in lieu of providing job accused applicant and other accused persons have taken amount of Rs.2 lac but it is admitted fact that Rs.2 lac, which is said to be received by the applicant and other accused persons, has already been paid to the informant. The details of aforesaid transaction have been mentioned in para-4 of the supplementary affidavit and the above fact has been verified by learned A.G.A. by means of compliance affidavit in para-4, meaning thereby the informant/the victim has received Rs.2 lac. It is further argued that applicant has criminal history of 16 criminal cases which have been explained in para-20 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 16.09.2025. 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.

¶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 trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the

¶12

BAIL No. 38453 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

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 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 21, 2025 Asha

¶24

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶25

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

Adarsh Rai @ Bhaiya Rai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adarsh Rai @ Bhaiya Rai 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

Vinay Alias Kallu vs State of U.P.

Atul Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Badhshah vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary Home, Lucknow

Jaswant vs State of U.P.

Abrar and Another vs State of U.P.

Firoz vs State of U.P.