Allowed¶14

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2026BAIL/36642/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court bail granted; Section 483 BNSS; Case Crime No. 561 of 2025; PS Hapur Nagar; Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS 2023; Section 38 Aadhaar Act 2016; Sections 4/13 UP Public Examination (Prevention of Public Unfair Means) Act 2024; impersonation in examination via dual Aadhaar cards; no criminal history; custody since 07.09.2025; personal bond Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; conditions under Section 351 BNSS; no expression on merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted: applicant Sunil Kumar to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the conditions enumerated in the order. ¶14

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted: applicant Sunil Kumar to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the conditions enumerated in the order.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Sunil Kumar, accused in Case Crime No. 561 of 2025, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, should be released on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Court's answer

Considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant is found to be a fit case for bail and the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of prosecution witnesses, and presence before the trial court on fixed dates.

¶15

Key takeaways

Anything said in the order is limited to the determination of the bail application and is not an expression on the merits; the trial court remains free to arrive at independent conclusions on the evidence.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 allowed. Applicant accused in Case Crime No. 561 of 2025, PS Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS 2023, Section 38 Aadhaar Act 2016 and Sections 4/13 UP Public Examination (Prevention of Public Unfair Means) Act 2024, alleged to have possessed two Aadhaar Cards bearing different dates of birth and to have appeared in an examination twice using admit cards obtained thereon. Applicant had no criminal history and was in custody since 07.09.2025. Considering totality of facts without expressing opinion on merits, the Court found it a fit case for bail: release on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no inducement/tampering, no intimidation of witnesses, presence before trial court including for framing of charge and statement under Section 351 BNSS). Observations confined to the bail determination; trial court free to reach independent conclusions.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36642 of 2025

¶3

Sunil Kumar

¶4

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mohit Kumar, Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 69

¶6

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Mohit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

2. 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. 561 of 2025. Under Section 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 38 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 and Section 4/13 Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Public Unfair Means) Act, 2024, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 7.9.2025. It is further submitted that the applicant was arrested with two Aadhaar Cards bearing different dates of birth, and on the basis of the said Aadhaar Cards, he is alleged to have obtained two admit cards and to have appeared in the examination twice using the said admit cards. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. It is also submitted that the applicant 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.

¶10

BAIL No. 36642 of 2025

¶11

¶12

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶13

5. As per allegations in the FIR, the applicant was arrested with two Aadhaar Cards bearing different dates of birth, and on the basis of the said Aadhaar Cards, he is alleged to have obtained two admit cards and to have appeared in the examination twice using the said admit cards. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶14

6. 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 .

¶15

7 . Let the applicant- Sunil Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 with the following conditions :-

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

BAIL No. 36642 of 2025

¶23

¶24

cancellation of bail.

¶25

9. 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

April 2, 2026 KJ

¶28

Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar 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

Similar cases

Mohan vs State of U.P.

Rahul Kumar vs State of U.P.

Nitesh Gupta Alias Golu vs State of U.P.

Anand Hudda vs State of U.P.

Annu @ Anup vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Gond vs State of U.P.