Banti @ Mama vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40245 of 2025

Banti @ Mama

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant 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, during the pendency of trial.

Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Arman Saifi, Sanjeev @ Monu and Kapil have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 30.10.2025, 29.10.2025 and 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.37751 of 2025, 37377 of 2025 and 35081 of 2025 respectively. Applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 12 of the bail application and para 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 23.9.2025 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

BAIL No. 40245 of 2025

2

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report; his name surfaced during the course of investigation. Identically placed co-accused Arman Saifi, Sanjeev @ Monu and Kapil have been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant Banti @ Mama , involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.