Brijesh Puri vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 893 of 2026

Brijesh Puri

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶9

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶10

On a query being put, Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned State Counsel submitted that he has complete instructions in the matter and is ready to argue the case on merits, as such the Court proceeded to hear the instant application seeking bail on merits.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned State Counsel for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶12

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 77 of 2025, under Sections- 105, 238 B.N.S, Police Station-Chandapur, District-Raebareli.

¶13

While pressing the instant application, the learned counsel for the applicant stated that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person. According to the F.I.R., on 29.11.2025, the deceased was dancing behind a D.J vehicle in an intoxicated state and collided with an unknown vehicle, as a result of which he sustained injuries and subsequently died. The deceased body was found in an agricultural field on 30.11.2025 at about 8:00 p.m.

¶14

It is further stated that the informant is the brother of the deceased and he also made a similar statement before the Investigating Officer.

¶15

BAIL No. 893 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

It is further stated that the Majid statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Office and on the basis of information received, without disclosing the source of such information, the informant in the Majid statement indicated the name of the applicant and other coaccused persons and thereafter, the applicant was arrested and sent to jail on 15.12.2025, and since then the applicant, who has no criminal history, is in incarceration.

¶18

It is further stated that the present case is based purely on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence available with the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt before the trial court.

¶19

It is also stated that the delay in recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses is fatal to the prosecution story. He further submits that, in fact, it is a case of accident and that due to previous enmity, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶20

It is further submitted that applicant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 15.12.2025. In these circumstances, the present application is liable to be allowed and the applicant may be enlarged on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail, however he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the applicant.

¶22

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the application has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant- Brijesh Puri be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties (one of family member) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :-

¶24

BAIL No. 893 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶27

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶28

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶29

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶30

(v) 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.

¶31

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶32

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶33

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶34

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶35

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶36

February 10, 2026

¶37

Preeti

¶38

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

Brijesh Puri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Puri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

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

Shankar @ Shiv Shankar vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Savitri vs Sri Ranjan Verma Naib Tehsildar Milkipur Tehsil-Milkipur Distt. Ayodhya

Ajeet Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Arjun Yadav vs Shri Padmesh Srivastava Tehsildar Tehsil Alapur Distt. Ambedkar Nagar

Nankan Prasad Chauhan vs Santosh Kumar Sinha, Addl. General Manager/Unit Head Iti Ltd. Gonda