Neeraj Pasi @ Kuldeep Bhartiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.137 of 2025, under Section 309(6), 311, 115(2), 351(3), 317(2) BNS, Police Station Sangramgarh, District Pratapgarh.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. His name surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of the statement of the co-accused as well as the alleged confessional statement of the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 01.08.2025.

¶12

It is also contended that the co-accused, Tufani @ Sanjeet Kanaujiya , who has been assigned a similar role, has already been granted bail vide order dated 10.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9736 of 2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the bail application.

¶13

Learned counsel further submits that from the possession of the applicant, one country-made pistol of .12 bore and one live cartridge are alleged to have been recovered.

¶14

On the aforesaid grounds, it is submitted that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity with the said co-

BAIL No. 839 of 2026

2

accused.

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

¶19

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above.

¶20

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶21

On due consideration of the bail order granted to the co-accused Tufani @ Sanjeet Kanaujiya, who has been assigned similar role that of the applicant and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 01.08.2025, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶23

Let the applicant Neeraj Pasi @ Kuldeep Bhartiya , involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case crime number, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

February 20, 2026 Madhu J.R/P.S

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

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

Neeraj Pasi @ Kuldeep Bhartiya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Pasi @ Kuldeep Bhartiya 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Dharmchandra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Pooja Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Child Development and Nutrition Deptt. U.P., Lko. and 5 Others

Ram Babu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Tech. Edu. Lko. and 6 Others

Jamal Ahmed Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others