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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Amit Kumar to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; in case of breach, the prosecution may move a bail cancellation application before this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Amit Kumar, who was not named in the first information report and is in custody since 18.01.2025, is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 483 BNSS in Case Crime No. 11 of 2025 (Sections 316(2), 316(3), 317(2), 61(2) BNS), Police Station Ikdil, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial.

Court's answer

This Court prima facie found that the applicant was not named in the first information report; that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery; that at this stage there is no credible evidence to establish that the said mobile phones were stolen property; that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; that he has remained confined for more than one month with no hope of early conclusion of trial; and that no reasonable apprehension was brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would tamper with evidence, delay the trial or intimidate witnesses.

Ratio / Principle

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court concluded that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Section 483 BNSS application in Case Crime No. 11 of 2025, Sections 316(2), 316(3), 317(2), 61(2) BNS, Police Station Ikdil, District Etawah. Applicant Amit Kumar was not named in the first information report. It was submitted (and the Court prima facie noted the absence of independent witness) that recovery of 56 mobile phones from a car not belonging to the applicant was falsely shown; at this stage the Court found no credible evidence that the mobile phones were stolen property; the co-accused Atul claimed ownership of the phones (counsel's submission); the applicant had no criminal antecedents and had remained confined since 18.01.2025 (more than one month) with no hope of early conclusion of trial, and the State brought no reasonable apprehension that he would tamper with evidence, delay the trial or intimidate witnesses. Without commenting on the merits, the applicant was held entitled to bail: personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount, with conditions to appear on dates fixed, not tamper with prosecution evidence and not pressurize prosecution witnesses; on breach, the prosecution may seek bail cancellation before this Court. (Vivek Varma, J.; Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:33622; Order dated 7.3.2025.)

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33622

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8115 of 2025

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Gupta,Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

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

The instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 316(3), 317(2), 61(2) BNS, Police Station Ikdil, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 56 mobile phones has been shown from a Car, which does not belong to the applicant. In the said Car apart from the applicant five other persons were present. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no credible evidence to establish that the said mobile phones were stolen property. In fact, the co-accused Atul claims that the said mobile phones belong to him. The applicant is in jail since 18.01.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

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

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no credible evidence to establish that the said mobile phones were stolen property. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has remained confined for more than one month and 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

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

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

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

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

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Sachin Mishra

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad