Bhola @ Munnesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2920 of 2025

¶3

Bhola @ Munnesh Kumar

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Noor Muhammad, Srivastava	Yogesh	Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 87

¶7

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶8

Case called out in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. Heard learned counsel for appellant and the learned AGA for State.

¶9

As per office report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose the appeal.

¶10

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Firozabad and to release the appellant on bail in Bail Application No.3946 of 2024 (Manish Kumar Kumar Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No.230 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 109, 103 (1), 3(5) of The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS)-2023 and Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Narkhi, District Firozabad.

¶11

Informant Shailendra Kumar lodged an FIR on 3.7.2024 wherein he alleged that his son Amar along with his friend was returning from birthday party on 2.7.2024. In between their motorcycle suffered some overheating and all of them got off it started playing with small pebbles on the road and in between one unknown person was hit by the pebble and some altercation started. Thereafter some unknown person on a motorcycle came there and started beating them. Hemant, friend of Vijay, who was also present there, received a phone call from his mother and he informed her that some

¶12

CRLA No. 2920 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

unknown persons are assaulting them. On said information, Rajveer ( brother of Hemant), Kaushal and Vijay who was also son of informant arrived at the spot. All of them tendered their apology to the unknown persons but they continued their assaults with clubs and iron rods. When Vijay and his friends tried to flee from spot on a motorcycle, assailants who were by a car, hit them from back and started crashing them repeatedly. In the said incident, Vijay was seriously injured and Rajveer suffered fracture of his backbone. Later on Vijay succumbed to the injuries in the trauma center.

¶15

Sri Yogesh Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant has submitted that entire incident was captured in the CCTV footage. It is clear that the alleged incident was committed by co-accused Manish Kumar and Raj Kumar. Appellant was not seen in the CCTV footage. Hence, the appellant is entitled to bail.

¶16

Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasia, learned AGA for State has strongly opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

¶17

I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record.

¶18

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶20

Let the appellant- Bhola @ Munnesh Kumar involved in Case Crime No.230 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 109, 103 (1), 3(5) of The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS)-2023 and Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Narkhi, District Firozabad , 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless

¶24

CRLA No. 2920 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

personal presence is exempted.

¶27

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶28

(v) The appellant 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.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the concerned Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted.

¶30

December 10, 2025

¶31

Mukesh

¶32

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhola @ Munnesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola @ Munnesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suraj Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Chiraunjee Devi vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 Others

Awadhesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Tushar @ Saleem vs State of U.P. and Another

Mallu Ram Bind vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Govind Shri vs Avneesh Kumar and 2 Others