Rahul Pal Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

Rahul Pal Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Rahul Pal, implicated in Case Crime No. 390 of 2024 (Police Station Madiyahoon, District Jaunpur) under Sections 317(2), 338, 340(2), 341(3), 3(5), 319(2), 318(2), 309(4) B.N.S., is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

Court's answer

Prima facie, the applicant was not named in the first information report; his name was disclosed by co-accused Pankaj Kumar Bharti in police custody; there was no independent witness to the alleged recovery and no CCTV footage of the incident; at that stage there was no substantive evidence linking the applicant with the offence.

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account parity with co-accused Pankaj Kumar Bharti already granted bail, the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents, his confinement of more than two months, submission of the charge-sheet with no hope of early conclusion of trial, and absence of any reasonable State apprehension that he would tamper with evidence, delay the trial or intimidate witnesses, the Court held, without commenting on the merits, that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vivek Varma, J.; order dated 7.3.2025) allowed the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. of Rahul Pal in Case Crime No. 390 of 2024, under Sections 317(2), 338, 340(2), 341(3), 3(5), 319(2), 318(2), 309(4) B.N.S., Police Station Madiyahoon, District Jaunpur. The Court prima facie found that the applicant was not named in the first information report, his name having been disclosed by co-accused Pankaj Kumar Bharti in police custody; that the alleged recovery of 8 ATM cards, Rs.3000/- cash and a country made pistol had no independent witness; and that there was no CCTV footage of the incident, leaving no substantive evidence linking the applicant with the offence at that stage. Parity was drawn with co-accused Pankaj Kumar Bharti, already granted bail by the Court on 27.02.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3080 of 2025. Noting the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents, his confinement since 15.12.2024 (more than two months), submission of the charge-sheet with no hope of early conclusion of trial, and absence of any reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence, delay of trial or intimidation of witnesses, the Court, without commenting on merits, directed release on bail on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, conditioned on appearance when fixed, non-tampering with prosecution evidence and non-pressurization of prosecution witnesses, with liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation on breach.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34319

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8186 of 2025

Applicant :- Rahul Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Tiwari,Suneel Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

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

The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 390 of 2024, under Sections 317(2), 338, 340(2), 341(3), 3(5), 319(2), 318(2), 309(4) B.N.S., Police Station Madiyahoon, District Jaunpur during the pendency of the trial.

Learned 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. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Pankaj Kumar Bharti in the police custody. False recovery of 8 ATM cards, Rs.3000/- cash and a country made pistol has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. There is no CCTV footage of the alleged incident. At this stage there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Co-accused Pankaj Kumar Bharti has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3080 of 2025, Pankaj Kumar Bharti v. State of U.P.. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 15.12.2024 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

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

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the

applicant was disclosed by co-accused Pankaj Kumar Bharti in the police custody. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. There is no CCTV footage of the alleged incident. At this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Co-accused Pankaj Kumar Bharti has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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- Rahul Pal, 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 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; and,

(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 SKT/-

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad