Ranjan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7353 of 2025

Ranjan Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhaker Prakash, Kapil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 11

¶8

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶9

1. Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶10

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶11

3. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.123 of 2025, under Sections 205, 318(2), 338, 336(2), 340(2) BNS & Section 7/25 Arms Act, Police Station Alambagh, District - Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶12

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case and he is in jail since 6.7.2025. He further submits that applicant was an unemployed youth and was in search of job, thereafter, one Vikas Kumar Rai met him and assured that he will provide job to him as police personnel. He also submits that Vikas Kumar Rai also provided a uniform to the applicant and thereafter, applicant started working with him, however, later on, he was taken into custody by the police with the allegation that applicant misused the uniform of police personnel by realizing money from several persons by cheating but not even a single victim of alleged cheating was found. He also submits that Vikas Kumar Rai has already been enlarged on bail, therefore, applicant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged

¶13

BAIL No. 7353 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposes the prayer for grant of bail, but he does not dispute this fact that co-accused, Vikas Rai has already been enlarged on bail.

¶17

6. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A., material available on record, contents of F.I.R., other relevant documents, it is evident that no victim of alleged cheating was found and co-accused, Vikas Kumar Rai has already been enlarged on bail, therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

7. Let applicant - Ranjan Kumar - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

(ii) 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.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 BNS.

¶23

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in

¶24

BAIL No. 7353 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 BNS, may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/209 BNS.

¶27

(vi) The applicant 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 BNS. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant 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 him in accordance with law.

¶28

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

¶29

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶30

June 8, 2026

¶31

GauraV/-

¶32

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

Ranjan Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Kumar 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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lucknow, Thru. Its Assistant Manager vs Deep Chandra and Others

Smt. Poonam Devi and Ors. vs Satya Deo Goyal and Ors.

Smt.Kalawati Vs Chandra Prakash and Ors.

Vijai Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Secondary Education and 2 Others

Mukesh Verma @ Mukesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Sachin vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.