Anubhav Beniwal Alias Abhinav Alias Annu Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31627

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7734 of 2025

Applicant :- Anubhav Beniwal Alias Abhinav Alias Annu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepankar Shukla,Pradeep Kumar Mishra,Sr. Advocate

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 643 of 2023, under Sections 406, 471, 468, 467, 420 IPC, Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The first information report has been lodged belatedly. An agreement to sell was executed between the co-accused Rama Shankar Pandey and the first informant. Thereafter, the said agreement to sell was not enforced. Consequently, the instant FIR was lodged belatedly. The applicant has not forged or manipulated any document. No amount has been credited in the account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transaction. The applicant is in jail since 11.11.2024 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

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

¶11

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the FIR has been lodged belatedly. An agreement to sell was executed between the coaccused Rama Shankar Pandey and the first informant. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has remained confined for more than three months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no

¶12

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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Anubhav Beniwal @ Abhinav @ Annu involved in the aforesaid case 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:

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶16

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶17