Akram Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14173 of 2026

Akram

.....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Yogesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 69

¶6

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Shri Yogesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Ashish Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶9

The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.42 of 2026, under Sections 109(1) of B.N.S., and Section 5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, registered at Police Station Gunjdundwara, District Kasganj, during pendency of the trial.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that two alive bulls are said to have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused and other coaccused Tasleem and the applicant are said to have fled away from the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.03.2026 and the applicant is having criminal history of one case relating to Public Gambling Act, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶11

BAIL No. 14173 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶14

As per first information report, two alive bulls are said to have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused and other co-accused Tasleem and the applicant are said to have fled away from the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.03.2026 and the applicant is having criminal history of one case relating to Public Gambling Act.

¶15

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Akram involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned :-

¶17

(i) 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.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

¶20

(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 the trial court.

¶21

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶22

BAIL No. 14173 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

May 6, 2026 RKM

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akram v. State of U.P.

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

Sumit Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Vs State of U.P.

Monish Vs State of U.P.

Gautam Gihar Vs State of U..P.

Rohit @ Keera Vs State of U.P.

Samshul vs State of U.P.