Kismat Ali @ Baba vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1347 of 2026

Kismat Ali @ Baba

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.	Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Krishna Kant Tiwari, Kalapanath, Vijay Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶11

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.408 of 2025 under Section 126(2), 310(2), 311, 317(2) BNS, Police Station Chhapia, District Gonda.

¶12

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 15.11.2025 at about 10:35 a.m., while the complainant was proceeding from his residence to CSC Veerpur Bharpurwa Bazar carrying a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, three unknown persons riding a motorcycle intercepted him and looted the said amount. It is further alleged that the assailants threatened the complainant by brandishing a firearm and assaulted him with the butt of the gun.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no test identification parade has been conducted in the present case and that the source of identification of the applicant has not been disclosed by the Investigating Officer. It is contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed. The alleged recovery of Rs. 60,000/- and a country made pistol is stated to have been falsely shown from the possession of the applicant. Learned counsel further submits

¶14

BAIL No. 1347 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

that pursuant to a single arrest on 23.11.2025, the applicant has been implicated not only in the present case but also in two other previous cases registered against unknown persons. The criminal history relating to those two cases has been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit.

¶17

It is also submitted that co-accused Lavkush Yadav who was assigned a similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1062 of 2026, and the applicant claims parity with the said co-accused.

¶18

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above.

¶20

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶21

Considering the fact that co-accused Lavkush Yadav has already been granted bail, the applicant is in judicial custody since 23.11.2025, the charge-sheet has been filed, the criminal history of two cases has been explained in the bail application, and no test identification parade has been conducted, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity.

¶22

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

¶23

Let the applicant Kismat Ali @ Baba , involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case crime number, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶24

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶25

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶26

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial

¶27

BAIL No. 1347 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

Court.

¶30

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶31

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.

¶32

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶33

March 16, 2026 R.C.

¶34

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

Kismat Ali @ Baba v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kismat Ali @ Baba 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

Similar cases

Chandra Kishore and 14 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Vocational Edu. and Skill Deve. Deptt. Lko. and Another

Virendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abhishek Yadav vs State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rudra Prakash Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Planning, Lko. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar Goel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.