Ankush vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50448

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6868 of 2025

Applicant :- Ankush Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on records.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Ankush seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 74 of 2024, under Sections 302, 364, 392, 201, 120-B, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶9

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 04.03.2024 by Smt. Sapna Devi against unknown person alleging therein that her husband Arun Kumar went from the house on 29.02.2024 at about 7:00 a.m. with his loader for work. At about 7:00 p.m. on the same day, her husband called his brother on mobile phone and told that the vehicle has been unloaded and he is going back home, after that, at about 10:00 p.m., he again called his brother and told that he has been kidnapped by two persons and it is difficult for him to save himself, thereafter, the mobile phone got switched off. Information about the same was given to

¶10

Noorulhuda, the owner of the vehicle but on asking he did not tell as to where he has sent the vehicle on rent. The G.P.S. location of the vehicle is being shown at Maharajpur area. It is further stated therein that someone has murdered her husband and taken the loader. The loader is being found near Beni Madhav Guest House. Hence, the report be lodged and action be taken.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and the applicant has no concern with the said vehicle. It is submitted that the applicant has been made an accused in the present matter only on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused Himanshu, who has stated that the applicant and co-accused Rajat Singh assisted him in providing parking space for the loader vehicle. It is submitted that although, Himanshu @ Krishna Kumar, Harsh Chaudhari and the applicant were arrested but from the possession of the applicant Rs.310/- and touch screen mobile were was recovered, which are not incriminating. It is submitted that the applicant is not involved in the present matter. The implication of the applicant in the present case is on the basis of inadmissible evidence. There is no eye witness of the said murder. It is further submitted that the investigation in the matter has been concluded. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 34 of the affidavit and is in jail since 08.03.2024.

¶12

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant was present along with coaccused and he was instrumental in hiding the said vehicle, which would go to show that he has actively participated in the present incident.

¶13

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. There is no eye witness of the said murder. The implication of the applicant in the present matter is on the basis of statement of coaccused during investigation.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Ankush be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during

¶20

trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶22

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed .

¶25

Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶26

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶27

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Manoj

¶28

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

Ankush v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush 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

Deepak Yadav Alias Sarkar vs State of U.P.

Dwarika Prasad Jha vs State of U.P.

Ankush vs State of U.P.

Ram Milan vs State of U.P.

Smt. Laungshri Alias Kamla vs State of U.P.

Vijaypal vs State of U.P.