Narendra @ Nandu vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44434 of 2025

Narendra @ Nandu

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Karunesh Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

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

¶8

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Narendra @ Nandu seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.500 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly.

¶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 13.6.2025. It is submitted that two accused persons are named in the FIR, whereas applicant is not named in the FIR which has been registered with the allegation that co-accused persons, who are named in the FIR have fraudulently used to take benefit under the P.M. Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna by fabricating the documents collected from those persons, who are covered under the aforesaid scheme. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation applicant was arrested alongwith eight co-accused persons on 13.6.2025 in Case Crime No.560 of 2025, under Sections 318(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5), 61(2) BNS, P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly, wherein false recovery of some claim form, aadhar card, bank passbook, death certificate etc were shown from joint possession applicant alongwith eight co-accused persons and on the basis of aforesaid case applicant was falsely implicated in the present case also but neither he has taken any benefit nor any incriminating article was recovered from possession of applicant in the

¶10

BAIL No. 44434 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

present case. It is argued that applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in para 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It is further argued that co-accused Dharmveer has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44101 of 2025. 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.

¶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 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:-

¶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

BAIL No. 44434 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

December 16, 2025 RA

¶25

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶26

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

Narendra @ Nandu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra @ Nandu 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

Radharaman @ Rinku vs State of U.P.

Sheebu vs State of U.P.

Atul Kulshreshtha vs State of U.P.

Shyam Gupta vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Singh vs State of U.P.

Laakhan Singh Yadav vs State of U.P.