Ritik Rawat and Another vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40582 of 2025

Ritik Rawat And Another	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anshu Singh, Hemendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶3

Court No. - 66

¶4

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶5

1. List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Akshansh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of two accused namely Ritik Rawa/applicant No.1 and Sube Singh/applicant No.2

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants at the very outset submits that the applicant No.2/Sube Singh is reported to be having a criminal history of one other case and as such para 12 and 15 of the affidavit in which it is stated that the applicants are not previous convict, is vague inasmuch as the criminal history is neither disclosed nor explained. He further submits that in so far as the applicant No.2/Sube Singh is concerned, the same is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a better bail application. He prays that the bail application survives only for the applicant No.1/Ritik Rawat.

¶9

Prayer is allowed.

¶10

The bail application on behalf of the applicant No.2/Sube Singh is dismissed as not pressed .

¶11

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Ritik Rawat , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 147 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 125, 109(1), 3(5) BNS and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 11(4), 324(4) BNS and Section 25/9 Arms Act, registered at Police Station Bahsuma, District Meerut.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that identically placed coaccused Hariom Nagar has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of

¶13

BAIL No. 40582 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

this Court vide order dated 12.11.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 39509 of 2025 (Hariom Nagar Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. The same reads as under:

¶16

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶17

2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 147 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 125, 109(1), 3(5), 111(4), 324(4) BNS, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 25/9 Arms Act, Police Station- Bahsuma, District- Meerut , during the pendency of trial.

¶18

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, two groups were firing at each other. In the alleged incident, no person received any injury. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. Vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. It is next contended that the applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no.17 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 23.08.2025 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶19

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

¶20

5. 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. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. In the alleged incident, no person received any injury. Vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. Further, 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.

¶21

6. Let the applicant Hariom Nagar, 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:

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶25

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court."

¶26

It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. It is further

¶27

BAIL No. 40582 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

submitted that as per the FIR, two groups were involved in firing to each other and in the present incident no person have received any injury, para 10 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. Learned counsel for the applicant makes a statement at bar that there is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. The applicant is not previous convict as stated in para 15 of the affidavit and is in jail since 21.08.2025.

¶30

Per contra, learned counsel for State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused Hariom Nagar has been granted bail.

¶31

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The implication of the applicant has surfaced in the present matter during investigation. No person have received any injury in the incident. Coaccused Hariom Nagar has been granted bail.

¶32

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶33

Let the applicant Ritik Rawat, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶34

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶35

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶36

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶37

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if 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 209 BNS, 2023.

¶38

BAIL No. 40582 of 2025

¶39

4

¶40

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶41

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶42

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶43

The bail application is allowed only on behalf of the applicant No.1/Ritik Rawat.

¶44

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶45

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶46

November 18, 2025 M. ARIF

¶47

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ritik Rawat and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritik Rawat and Another 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

Sunil vs State of U.P.

Badri vs State of U.P.

Akash vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Toyaj Pal vs State of U.P.