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

Heard Sri Ashutosh Bajpai, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶10

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 95 of 2025. under Sections 305(A), 331(4) of B.N.S., registered at Police Station Dargah Sharif, District Bahraich.

¶11

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 05.04.2025, alleging that some unknown thieves had stolen goods worth Rs. 70,000/- and Rs.30,000/- cash from the godown of the informant. The incident was recorded in the CCTV camera installed in the godown.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, it has been contended that the applicant is a young man aged 20 years and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶13

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant's involvement in two other cases has been disclosed by means of a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant, in one of which the applicant has been granted bail by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich by means of an order dated 23.08.2024 and in other case he has been granted anticipatory bail by means of

¶14

NABAIL No. 1075 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

an order dated 19.07.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge Shravasti.

¶17

6.The learned A.G.A has opposed the anticipatory bail application and she has submitted that the incident has been recorded in CCTV footage. However, he has admitted that the applicant has not been seen in the CCTV footage of the incident and the applicant has been implicated in the present case on the basis of custodial statement of two co-accused persons. He has further submitted that some stolen articles have been recovered from the arrested persons.

¶18

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that although the incident is said to have been recorded in the CCTV footage, no accused person could be identified from the CCTV footage, and it is not the case that the applicant is seen in the CCTV footage and that the applicant has been granted bail/anticipatory bail in the cases in which he is said to be involved and without entering into merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in the present case also.

¶19

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicantArman before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶20

(i). that the applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶21

(ii) that 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;

¶22

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶23

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date

¶24

NABAIL No. 1075 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶27

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.