Suraj @ Karamveer and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Shri Ashvani Kumar, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record.

¶12

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 04.12.2025 at about 8:00 p.m., while the informant was sitting at his shop, Suraj along with two other persons attacked him. It is further alleged that the complainant, in order to save his life, ran away from the spot. During the course of the incident, the shop as well as the air conditioner installed therein were damaged and set on fire. It is also alleged that the accused persons had taken an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant and, when the complainant demanded the return of the said amount, the aforesaid incident took place.

¶13

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that that applicant no. 2 has a criminal history of only one case, which has been duly explained in paragraph 19 of the bail application and pertains to a trivial dispute. It is further submitted that applicant no. 1 has no criminal antecedents whatsoever. Learned counsel further contends that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, Section 326(g) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is not attracted, inasmuch as the alleged shop which is stated to have been burnt does not fall within the parameters of a building or human dwelling as contemplated under Section 326(g) BNS. It is submitted that the said section has been added only to enhance the gravity of the offence, whereas the remaining offences are punishable with imprisonment of less

BAIL No. 568 of 2026

2

than seven years.

It is further submitted that the complainant did not sustain any injury in the alleged incident, which is evident from the statement of the complainant recorded by the police under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Consequently, the complainant was not medically examined. Learned counsel also submits that the name of applicant no. 2, who is a student aged about 21 years, does not find mention either in the First Information Report or in the first statement of the complainant, and his name has been introduced subsequently after making improvements in the restatement.

¶18

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that in the incident, the shop of the complainant as well as the air conditioner installed therein have been damaged.

¶20

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that applicant no. 2 has explained his criminal antecedent of one case; applicant no. 1 has no criminal history; the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants regarding the applicability of Section 326(g) BNS; the fact that prima facie no person appears to have sustained any injury in the incident; and further considering that the applicants are languishing in jail since 09.12.2025, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicants on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicants Suraj @ Karamveer and Siddharth Yadav, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 332 of 2025, Under Sections- 8/20 N.D.P.S Act, Police Station- Khairabad, District- Sitapur, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶23

BAIL No. 568 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

(i) the applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶26

(ii) the applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶27

(iii) the applicants shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶28

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶29

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

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

February 3, 2026 R.C.

¶32

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suraj @ Karamveer and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj @ Karamveer and Another 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

Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 3 Others

Sohbat Lal Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 2 Others

Rajendra Nath Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 2 Others

Akash Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Add. Chief. Secy. Home Civil Secretariat Lko.

Ram Janm Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Technical Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Ajwa and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others