Arjun Bhargava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 299 of 2026

Arjun Bhargava

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vivek Kumar Rai, Ajai Kumar, Digant Sonakia, Nadeem Murtaza, Shakti Kumar Mishra, Wali Nawaz Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 13

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit today in Court and the same is taken on record.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶13

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 217 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 111(2)(b), 3(5) B.N.S. & 66(C) I.T. Act, Police Station BBD, District Lucknow.

¶14

While pressing the application for bail, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶15

It is stated that similarly placed co-accused namely Arshad Ali, Anwar Ahamd, Rinku, Musheer Ahmad and Amit Kumar Jaiswal have already been enlarged on bail vide order(s)of this Court dated 11.02.2026, 19.02.2026, 23.02.2026, 24.02.2026 and 13.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No(s). 11177 of 2025, 1234 of 2026, 1351 of 2026, 1436 of 2026 and 9978 of 2025 respectively. Copy of bail orders have been annexed collectively as Annexure No.RA-1 to the rejoinder

BAIL No. 299 of 2026

2

affidavit.

It is further stated that the applicant, having no criminal history, is in judicial custody since 12.09.2025. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty of bail and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including which are related to allegations made in the FIR and keeping in mind the period of incarceration as also that co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court as also chance of conclusion of trial in near future and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶22

Let the applicant- Arjun Bhargava be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties, out of which one shall be the family member of the accused-applicant each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶26

BAIL No. 299 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶29

(v) 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.

¶30

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

¶31

(vii) The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶32

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶33

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶34

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶35

Application is disposed of.

¶36

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶37

March 12, 2026

¶38

Arti/-

¶39

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

Arjun Bhargava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Bhargava 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Asha Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Dinesh Kumar Vishwakarma vs Dr. Brijendra Singh, v.C., Acharya Narendra Dev Agriculture and Tech. University, Ayodhya

Kuldeep Lam @ Kuldeep Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Juvenile Delinquent 'a' Thru. His Natural Guardian / Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Premnath Pal @ Kalahu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Sunita Gautam @ Nasreen vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.