Allowed

Mukesh Agrahari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2025BAIL/42328/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application in a group-assault case under various BNS sections. Applicant had no specific role in causing injuries, parity with co-accused already on bail, one criminal history case explained. Court granted bail on personal bond with two sureties and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to stated conditions including no tampering, presence at trial dates.

Mukesh Agrahari vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42328 of 2025

Mukesh Agrahari

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶7

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Mukesh Agrahari seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.170 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 118(1), 115(2), 324(5), 351(3), 352, 140(1), 126(2) B.N.S., Police Station Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar.

¶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 6.11.2025. It is submitted that ten accused persons alongwith some unknown persons including the applicant are named in the FIR which has been registered with the allegation that alongwith other co-accused persons have caused injury to the injured persons by hard and blunt object, knife but no specific and separate role of applicant regarding causing injury to the injured persons has been assigned either in the FIR or in the statements of injured persons Ankur Tripathi and Sandeep Tripathi recorded under Section 108 B.N.S.S. It is further submitted that as per injury report of injured Ankur Tripathi, swelling, abrasion were found on the body of the injured, while two sutured wounds, complaint of pain were found on the body of injured Sandeep Tripath but no fracture or grievous injury is said to be caused by the applicant. It is argued that the main role of causing sharp weapon injury on the neck of the injured has been assigned to co-accused Shivpujan

¶11

BAIL No. 42328 of 2025

¶12

¶13

Chaudhary whose bail application has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2025. It is further argued that co-accused Raju Chodhary, Vijapal Chaudhary, Manish Agrahari (Gupta) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 12.11.2025, 26.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.37650 of 2025, 41676 of 2025 respectively and parity is sought in the matter. It is next argued that applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in para 21 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is lastly submitted that since charge-sheet 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.

¶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 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 (2021) 3 SCC 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

BAIL No. 42328 of 2025

¶19

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.

¶24

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

December 2, 2025 RA

¶26

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh Agrahari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Agrahari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anoop Urf Rinku vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Ashvani vs State of U.P.

Vishal @ Monu @ Rodwill Herbert vs State of U.P.

Rahul Gupta vs State of U.P.

Aslam Alias Laeek vs State of U.P.