Amit Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.361 of 2025, under Section 305, 317(2), 331 B.N.S. Police Station-Masauli, District-Barabanki.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from one recovery, ten cases have been slapped on the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no independent witness of the incident nor of the alleged recovery. The alleged recovery memo shows six plastic bags containing different yellow and white metals/ornaments. Even the recovery memo is not specific. It is the case of false implication. The applicant has explained criminal history of total 28 cases in paragraph-22 of the bail application. No identification parade was conducted. The applicant is in jail since 03.09.2025.

¶13

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the

¶14

BAIL No. 233 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

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.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶18

On due consideration to the fact that the offence is triable by a Magistrate, no test identification parade has been conducted by the police, there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery, the applicant has explained criminal history, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail since 03.09.2025 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶19

Let the applicant Amit Verma , involved in Case Crime No.361 of 2025 under sections 305, 317(2), 331(4) B.N.S., 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(iii) 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 and he shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as

¶23

BAIL No. 233 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. Any other condition(s) which the trial court/court concerned may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶26

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶27

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

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

January 20, 2026

¶30

Arti/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ARTI MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Verma 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Singh @ Nanka Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shivpati and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Gurpindar Singh @ Pindar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Tanveer Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rinki and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Dayanand Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another