Virendra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants with prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 134 of 2026 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 326(g), 352, 351(3), 324(4) BNS, Police Station Motipur, District Bahraich.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case as there is a property dispute between the parties and a civil suit was filed from the side of the complainant against the applicants' family, which is pending since March, 2026 before the competent court. He further submits that Advocate Commissioner has already been appointed. As per the prosecution case, the applicants and other accused persons demolished the house of the complainant and also tried to burn the household articles. But, in the site plan, there is no evidence related to demolition of any dwelling house as well as burning of any article. He also submits that the applicants do not have any criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 16.04.2026 and are ready to cooperate in the investigation. He lastly submits that there is no evidence of tampering of any evidence, hence, the applicants are

¶15

BAIL No. 3857 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

entitled for bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the prayer of the applicants, submit that involvement of the applicants was found in the statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS. However, they do not dispute the fact that in the site plan, there is no evidence of demolition of dwelling house and burning of any household article.

¶19

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the bail application as well as other relevant materials including the site plan, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail.

¶20

The bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicants, namely, Virendra and Raj Kumar , who are involved in aforementioned case crime, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to following conditions:

¶22

(i) The applicants shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶23

(ii) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶25

(iv) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against

¶26

BAIL No. 3857 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

them under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶29

(v) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A I.P.C./209 B.N.S.

¶30

(vi) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶31

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

¶32

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶33

June 8, 2026 Arpan

¶34

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

Virendra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Ashutosh Tiwari @ Ankit Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Tushar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Ataullah Shah vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and

Ashok vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Iliyas Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.