BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9451 of 2026 Pawan State of U.P v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677 & Anr.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.N. Rai, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Pawan seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.418 of 2025 under Sections 140(1), 115(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Rath, District- Hamirpur, during pendency of trial.

Tersely, as per the allegation contained in the FIR six accused persons including the applicant have abducted the cousin of informant, namely Shivam Vyas but he was recovered after two hours of the incident.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case due to prior rivalry with the informant. Applicant is languishing in jail since 22.1.2026. It is submitted that though applicant is named in the FIR but no specific and distinct role has been assigned to the applicant regarding abduction of victim either in the FIR or in the statement of victim. It is further submitted that the victim Shivam Vyas having age of 25 years was said to be recovered on the very same day, after two hours of the incident and the victim in his statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. has not specified any distinct are separate role to the applicant regarding his abduction. It is argued that co-accused Vivek Rajpoot, Vinay Kumar, Nikhil having same role have already been enlarged on bail by this 2 BAIL No. 9451 of 2026 court vide orders dated 08.12.2025, 28.1.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.39746 of 2025, 40759 of 2025, 46152 of 2025 respectively and parity is sought in the matter. It is further argued that applicant has criminal history of ten cases which have been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre- trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail. It is further submitted that as per the instructions received, charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case on 16.11.2025.

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above as also the fact that though applicant is named in the FIR but no specific and distinct role has been assigned to the applicant regarding abduction of victim either in the FIR or in the statement of victim, the victim Shivam Vyas having age of 25 years was said to be recovered on the very same day, after two hours of the incident and the victim in his statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. has not specified any distinct are separate role to the applicant regarding his abduction, co-accused Vivek Rajpoot, Vinay Kumar, Nikhil having same role have already been enlarged on bail, charge-sheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses, he is languishing in jail since 22.1.2026, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs.

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

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. March 19, 2026 RA (Santosh Rai,J.)