Brijesh Ram vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32848

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6211 of 2025

Applicant :- Brijesh Ram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri V. P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-opposite party.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.474 of 2024, under Sections 127(2), 309(6), 351(3), 352, 317(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 61(2), 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 17.8.2024. The first information report was lodged on 19.08.2024. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-accused Laxikant Singh @ Rana Singh @ Ajay Singh in the police custody. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. The alleged mobile phone/SIM from which call was made to the informant does not belong to the applicant. No amount has been credited in the account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transaction. At this stage there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no.12 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 11.10.2024 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the

¶11

record this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The first information report has been lodged belatedly. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-accused Laxikant Singh @ Rana Singh @ Ajay Singh in the police custody. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Brijesh Ram, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶13

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶14

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶15

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶17

Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Manish Kr

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brijesh Ram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Ram 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Usman Ali @ Tanaku @ Ajay @ Alam vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Ikrar Ahmand vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar vs State of U.P.

Suresh Pasi vs State of U.P.

Sukhvendra Kumar vs State of U.P.