Ajeet Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9555 of 2026

Ajeet

			.....A	pplicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.			..	...Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Bipin, Vibhav	Praveen Srivastava	Kumar	Dwivedi,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ashok	Kumar Pand	ey, G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 69

¶6

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Bipin Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

¶8

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 40 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2), 109, 130, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(2), 110 BNS and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, registered at Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 25.1.2026. It is further submitted that some of the co-accused, namely, Yogesh Nagar, Sumit, Bhupendra, Manveer@Jitte, Sabu@Satendra and Jitendra have already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as by this Court. It is further submitted that role of the applicant is not distinguishable from the role of above coaccused. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out

¶10

BAIL No. 9555 of 2026

¶11

2

¶12

that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶13

4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and it is submitted that a person aged about 84 years has received injury on his head among others in the alleged incident. some of the co-accused, have already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court as well as by this Court.

¶14

5 . As per allegations in the FIR, 34 named and 10 unknown persons are said to have assaulted the first informant as a result of which seven persons are said to have received injuries, out of which 02 injured are said to have received grievous injuries on their person, however, no specific role has been assigned to the applicant and general role has been assigned to other co-accused including the applicant.

¶15

6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED .

¶16

7 . Let the applicant- Ajeet involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶17

(i) 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.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of

¶20

BAIL No. 9555 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶27

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶28

May 18, 2026

¶29

Abhishek

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajeet v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet v. State of U.P.

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

Jitan Alias Jeetan vs State of U.P.

Jitan Alias Jeetan Vs State of U.P.

Karan @ Chhappan vs State of U.P.

Sharwan Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.