Anshu Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40653 of 2025

Anshu Kumar Dubey

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Aadesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 70

¶6

HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 161 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(2) BNS, Police Station Cantt., District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent, neither any recovery whatsoever has been alleged to be recovered from the possession of the applicant nor having any intention or motive to commit such type of offence and he has been been falsely implicated in the subject case. Learned counsel submits that except the present case, applicant have antecedents of three cases, in which, he has already granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which have explained in para '18' of sub-para A, B and C of the present application. He further submits that there is no independent witness of the alleged incident. The applicant is in jail since 29.07.2025. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail on parity, he would not misuse liberty of bail and is ready to co-operate in the trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is no illegality in the bail rejection order. He prays that the present bail application be rejected.

¶11

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this

¶12

BAIL No. 40653 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident. At this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than nine months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Bail Application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant-Anshu Kumar Dubey, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶16