Allahabad High Court
Sanjay vs State Of U.P. on 11 September, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:161378
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28607 of 2025
Sanjay
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ajay Dubey, Anjeet Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ajay Dubey, Sri Anjeet Singh, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case No.7100562 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.209A of 1995, under Sections 307, 336, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kheragarh, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the certified copy of the instant case is not traceable. Initially the closure report was filed in the instant case, but the applicant was summoned on the basis of protest petition filed by the informant and he had filed a petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.3700 of 1999 before this Court and the proceedings were stayed vide order dated 31.08.1999. The said interim protection continued till 2024, but in light of the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (16) SCC 299, the said stay was vacated and coercive measures were taken against the applicant in the year 2025.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that even if the merits of the case are taken into account, the applicant is simply a member of the unlawful assembly and has nothing to do with the said offence. No overt act has been assigned to the applicant. The criminal history of four cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.06.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that no overt act has been assigned to the applicant, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Sanjay, 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 pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
11. It 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 11, 2025
(Ravi Kant)
