Allowed

Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2025BAIL/44337/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to an applicant accused under BNS provisions who was not named in the FIR but joined during investigation. The court noted the applicant had no criminal antecedents, the informant did not specifically implicate him, and the charge sheet was already submitted.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with conditions of personal bond, two sureties, and personal presence at key trial stages.

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44337 of 2025

Shyam Gupta

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Manoj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Purushottam Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Shyam Gupta seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.129 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 310(2), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Gujaini, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶9

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 4.7.2025. It is submitted that three accused persons alongwith two unknown persons are named in the FIR, whereas applicant is not named in the FIR which has been registered with the allegation that co-accused Deepak Pal called informant in a park, where applicant alongwith co-accused persons, who are named in the FIR have molested the informant, caused him injury and snatched Rs.6,000/from him. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation name of applicant was surfaced on the basis of statement of co-accused persons but the informant in his statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. has not specifically stated the role and involvement of applicant and applicant is the friend of informant. It is argued that the incident had occurred on 25.6.2025, whereas the FIR was registered after three days on 28.6.2025 for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution and the FIR was initially registered under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 310(2), 317(2) B.N.S., 3/4 POCSO Act but during the course of investigation on the

¶10

BAIL No. 44337 of 2025

¶11

¶12

basis of statement of informant provision of POCSO Act was deleted. It is further argued that applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is lastly submitted that since charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case on 27.8.2025, 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Having considered the respective submissions advanced; considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal history; informant has not specifically stated role and involvement of applicant, 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:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on

¶19

BAIL No. 44337 of 2025

¶20

¶21

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 misuses 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 16, 2025 RA

¶26

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶27

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

Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Gupta 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

Radharaman @ Rinku vs State of U.P.

Sheebu vs State of U.P.

Atul Kulshreshtha vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Singh vs State of U.P.

Laakhan Singh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Ayan vs State of U.P.