State of U.P v. Party

1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 53 of 2024, under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Khanpur, District Ghazipur during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 considering the fact that from the possession of applicant allegedly fake currency of Rs. 21,700/- were recovered.

4. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since

21.04.2024 i.e. for last almost one and half years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

5. He further submits, during trial co-accused Bishen Yadav from whose possession fake currency of Rs. 51,600/- were recovered claimed juvenility but his application could not be decided yet and therefore trial of the case could not be proceeded any further.

6. He next submits, even considering the long incarceration and delay in trial second bail application of co-accused Bishen Yadav has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail 2 BAIL No. 1621 of 2025 Application No. 40095 of 2024 and on facts, case of applicant is at better footing than him.

7. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and majority of cases relate to minor offences and in all the cases applicant is on bail.

8. He further submits, therefore, considering the facts of the case, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed after considering the fact that from the possession of applicant fake currency of Rs. 21,700/- were recovered but he could not dispute the fact that along with applicant co-accused Bishen Yadav was also apprehended and from his possession Rs. 51,600/- were also allegedly recovered and after considering his long incarceration and sluggish speed of the trial, his second bail application has been allowed and applicant is also detained in jail since April, 2024 i.e. for last almost one and half years.

10. Learned AGA however further submits, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but again could not dispute the fact that applicant has disclosed his criminal history in the instant bail application and majority of cases relate to minor offences.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. This is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court on merit after considering the fact that from his possession fake currency of Rs. 21,700/- were recovered but it reflects, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 21.04.2024 i.e. for last almost one and half years.

13. Further, along with applicant co-accused Bishen Yadav was also apprehended and from his possession also fake currency of Rs.51,600/- were allegedly recovered but considering his incarceration and sluggish speed of trial, his second bail application has been allowed and on facts, case of applicant is on better footing than him. 3 BAIL No. 1621 of 2025

14. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and it reflects, out of six cases four cases were of minor offences and one case relate to provision of U.P. Gangsters Act and considering his criminal history in view of this Court, his second bail application should not be withheld considering the other facts of the case including incarceration of the applicant and the fact that co-accused Bishen Yadav has already been released on bail.

15. Further, if on the ground of detention/incarceration Court is inclined to enlarge the accused on bail then his criminal history is irrelevant. (See: Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763).

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant - Amit Yadav @ Monu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 17, 2025 AK Pandey 4 BAIL No. 1621 of 2025 (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Vijay Bahadur Maurya, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 53 of 2024, under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Khanpur, District Ghazipur during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 considering the fact that from the possession of applicant allegedly fake currency of Rs. 21,700/- were recovered.

4. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since

21.04.2024 i.e. for last almost one and half years and till date trial of the case could not be concluded.

5. He further submits, during trial co-accused Bishen Yadav from whose possession fake currency of Rs. 51,600/- were recovered claimed juvenility but his application could not be decided yet and therefore trial of the case could not be proceeded any further.

6. He next submits, even considering the long incarceration and delay in trial second bail application of co-accused Bishen Yadav has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail 2 BAIL No. 1621 of 2025 Application No. 40095 of 2024 and on facts, case of applicant is at better footing than him.

7. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and majority of cases relate to minor offences and in all the cases applicant is on bail.

8. He further submits, therefore, considering the facts of the case, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed after considering the fact that from the possession of applicant fake currency of Rs. 21,700/- were recovered but he could not dispute the fact that along with applicant co-accused Bishen Yadav was also apprehended and from his possession Rs. 51,600/- were also allegedly recovered and after considering his long incarceration and sluggish speed of the trial, his second bail application has been allowed and applicant is also detained in jail since April, 2024 i.e. for last almost one and half years.

10. Learned AGA however further submits, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but again could not dispute the fact that applicant has disclosed his criminal history in the instant bail application and majority of cases relate to minor offences.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. This is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and his first bail application was dismissed by this Court on merit after considering the fact that from his possession fake currency of Rs. 21,700/- were recovered but it reflects, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 21.04.2024 i.e. for last almost one and half years.

13. Further, along with applicant co-accused Bishen Yadav was also apprehended and from his possession also fake currency of Rs.51,600/- were allegedly recovered but considering his incarceration and sluggish speed of trial, his second bail application has been allowed and on facts, case of applicant is on better footing than him. 3 BAIL No. 1621 of 2025

14. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and it reflects, out of six cases four cases were of minor offences and one case relate to provision of U.P. Gangsters Act and considering his criminal history in view of this Court, his second bail application should not be withheld considering the other facts of the case including incarceration of the applicant and the fact that co-accused Bishen Yadav has already been released on bail.

15. Further, if on the ground of detention/incarceration Court is inclined to enlarge the accused on bail then his criminal history is irrelevant. (See: Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763).

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant - Amit Yadav @ Monu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 17, 2025 AK Pandey 4 BAIL No. 1621 of 2025 (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad