Allowed

Farmu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2025BAIL/870/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS for an applicant in custody since November 2024 in a mob-violence case; the applicant was not named in the FIR and injuries were simple. The court found a case for bail without commenting on merits and released him on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to stated conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50558

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 870 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Farmu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Mohan Pandey,Ashish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed, which are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashank Singh, Advocate, holding brief of learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Farmu, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 402 of 2024, under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 109 (1), 115 (2), 352, 351 (2), 132, 125, 309 BNS and under Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Shikarpur, District Bulandshahr.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case crime number and is languishing in jail since 25.11.2024. He has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR and the aforesaid FIR has been lodged against mob. In the aforesaid incident several persons have received injuries, which are simple in nature. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or his pointing out. Applicant was not arrested from the spot and he has subsequently lifted by the police and he has not committed the aforesaid crime. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶10

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of

¶12

accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the accused-applicant, Farmu, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶15

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶16

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶17

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶18

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶19

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 v.k.updh.

¶21

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

Farmu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farmu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajay Maurya vs State of U.P.

Mangru Yadav vs State of U.P.

Sarjil Alias Sona vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Kushwaha vs State of U.P.

Diwari vs State of U.P.

Sabir Ansari vs State of U.P.