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

On a query being put, learned AGA submitted that he has complete instructions in the matter, as such, this Court proceeded to hear the application seeking bail on merits.

¶12

Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶13

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in FIR/Crime No.318 of 2025 under section 316(5), 111(2)(b), 61(2), BNS, P.S. Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow.

¶14

While pressing the application for bail, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶15

It is also stated that co-accused Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, Pramod Kumar Upadhyay have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2025 and 08.01.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11500 of 2025 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12984 of 2025. The relevant portion of the order dated 25.11.2025 reads as under:-

¶16

"4. While pressing the application for bail, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶17

5. It is also stated that co-accused Vinod Kumar Upadhyay has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11500 of 2025. The relevant portion of the order dated 25.11.2025 reads as under:-

¶18

"2. The accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR/Case Crime No.309 of 2025 under section 61(2), 111(2)b, 316(5), 318(4), 351(3), 352, 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, P.S. Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow.

¶19

3. It is argued that the co-accused have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail and one of the accused has been granted the bail.

¶20

4. Considering the nature of the allegations against the applicant to be similar and the applicant has adequately explained the criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶21

5. Let the applicant Vinod Kumar Upadhyay be released on bail in aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of

¶22

BAIL No. 973 of 2026

¶23

2

¶24

Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: "

¶25

5. It is further stated that the applicant is in judicial custody since 16.06.2025. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty of bail and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶26

6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶27

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including which are related to allegations made in the FIR and co-accused persons have already been released on bail by this Court and keeping in mind the period of incarceration as also the chance of conclusion of trial in near future and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶28

8. Let the applicant-Pramod Kumar Upadhyay be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties, out of which one shall be the family member of the accused-applicant, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions"

¶29

It is further stated that the applicant is in judicial custody since 16.06.2025. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty of bail and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶30

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶31

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including which are related to allegations made in the FIR and co-accused persons have already been released on bail by this Court and keeping in mind the period of incarceration as also the chance of conclusion of trial in near future and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶32

Let the applicant- Pramod Kumar Upadhyay be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties, out of which one shall be the family member of the accused-applicant, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶36

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶37

BAIL No. 973 of 2026

¶38

3

¶39

(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.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(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.

¶43

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

¶44

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶45

Application is disposed of.

¶46

February 11, 2026 Jyoti/-

¶47

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶48

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Upadhyay 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

Umesh @ Umesh Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shubham Pal vs Shri Rahul Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari Dist. Raebareli

Mr. X (Juvenile) Thru. Guardian vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Nandu @ Nand Kishore Saxena vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Nankau @ Babu Lal @ Devi Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Ayesha @ Nazma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.