Sainki and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 May 2025BAIL/4945/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted under Section 483 BNSS 2023 for offences under Sections 309(6) BNS 2023 and Arms Act; applicants not named in FIR but in co-accused's confessional statement; co-accused already on bail; no recovery from applicants; prima facie case and witness tampering apprehension acknowledged but bail allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to accused-applicants Sainki and Mahendra on execution of personal bond and two reliable sureties each, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, no criminal activity, no intimidation of witnesses, cooperation in trial, and regular appearance before trial court. ¶¶13-¶19

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70139

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4945 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sainki And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Agnivesh,Jadu Nandan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accusedapplicants, Sainki and Mahendra, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 501 of 2024, under Sections 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4/25 of Arms Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Kotwali Tirwa, DistrictKannauj.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the accusedapplicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and are languishing in jail since 01.12.2024. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are not named in the FIR. Applicants' name disclosed in the confessional statement of one co-accused, namely, Sahil Alias Love who has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 22.04.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application 1443 of 2025. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from possession of the applicants. The applicants' criminal antecedent has been explained in the supplementary affidavit and there is no likelihood of their fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶10

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction

¶12

and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the accused-applicants, Sainki and Mahendra , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶15

The applicants will not tamper with the evidence.

¶16

The applicants will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶17

The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶18

The applicants will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶19

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Anjali

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sainki and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sainki 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

Vipin Chakrwarti @ Vp vs State of U.P.

Aakash Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P.

Sonu vs State of U.P.

Geeta Alias Rani vs State of U.P.

Mohd Kaish vs State of U.P.

Sadik vs State of U.P.