Suspier Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant, alongwith co-accused persons, while hatching criminal conspiracy and luring general public, have indulged in an online/cyber fraud and have received the amount in their bank accounts.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. From the recovery memo, it has been shown that except Rs. 6250/- and a mobile phone along with five ATM cards, no recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant. The recovered mobile phone is not linked with the crime in question. He further submits that the offences are triable by the Magistrate. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.07.2025 without having any criminal antecedents.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Himanshu Mishra who was assigned similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2025 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 10398 of 2025. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused.

¶13

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case

¶14

BAIL No. 9259 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail i.e. since 25.07.2025 without having any criminal antecedents; co-accused Himanshu Mishra has been granted bail; the fact that offences are triable by the Magistrate; also considering the recovery made from the possession of the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶20

Let the applicant Suspier , involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 79 of 2025, Under Sections- 319(2), 318(4), 317(2), 3(5), 61(2), 338, 238, 339, 340(2) B.N.S. and Sections 43/66, 66-C and 66-D of Information Technology Act, Police Station- Laliya, District- Balrampur 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶22

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶25

BAIL No. 9259 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶28

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶29

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

November 20, 2025 R.C.

¶32

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suspier v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suspier v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nadeem Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Himanchal Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Girija Shankar Chaubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Chandshekhar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dr. Krishna Kumar Caroli vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical and Health Services Lko. and Another

Om Prakash Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko and Another