Suraj Narayan vs State of U.P.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Suraj Narayan seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.331 of 2025, under Sections 305, 331(3), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Ghaziabad.

¶11

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 2.8.2025. It is submitted that initially the FIR was registered as unknown and during course of investigation name of applicant was surfaced on the basis of CCTV footage. It is further submitted that Rs.4,80,500/- was said to be recovered from the possession of applicant but he has not taken out any amount from the damaged ATM and the aforesaid amount belongs to the applicant himself. It is argued that applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is further argued that co-accused Sonu Rajput has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.39308 of 2025. It is lastly submitted that since chargesheet 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.

¶12

BAIL No. 41268 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is submitted that Rs.4,80,500/- was credited in the account of applicant and total Rs.14,37,400/- was said to be taken out from the damaged ATM in this case. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and 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 AIR SC 712 and 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