Raman Kumar v. State of U.P

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33559 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶1List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶2Heard Sri Bratendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sandeep Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 109(1) B.N.S., Police Station-Nayagaon, District-Etah, during the pendency of trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Even the allegations made in the FIR do not corroborate the medical report, whereby the marks observed on the neck of the injured person were caused by hand while FIR indicates that said attempt was made by using clothes (Angochha), as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.

¶5It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the injuries sustained are minor in nature and may be self-inflicted just to implicate the applicant. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.7.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sandeep Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raman Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)

¶6Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶7Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay of three days in institution of FIR and there being inconsistency in the FIR to the medical report, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶8Let the applicant-Raman Kumar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

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

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

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 9 In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶10It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 26, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 33559 of 2025 (Krishan Pahal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad