Allahabad High Court
Amardeep @ R.P. vs State Of U.P. on 9 April, 2026
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:78470
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44209 of 2025
Amardeep @ R.P.
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Mayank Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Ankit Pandey, Deepak Gaur, G.A.
Court No. - 46
HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.
Matter is taken up in the revised call.
By means of the second bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.136 of 2024 at Police Station-Karari, District-Kaushambi under Sections 302, 201, 404, 34 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 14.06.2024.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 27.11.2024.
The following arguments made by Shri Mayank Srivastava, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Deepak Gaur, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
1. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial.
2. The applicant never influenced witnesses or tampered with the evidence at any stage.
3. The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the trial proceedings in any manner.
4. The status report sent by the learned trial court records that the prosecution proposes to examine 23 prosecution witnesses to bring home the charges. All material witnesses of fact have been examined.
5. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing the said material witnesses or tampering with the evidence.
6. The DNA report pertaining to the human remains does not connect the applicant with the offence.
7. The investigations were vitiated by pro-prosecution bias inasmuch as the exculpatory evidences were neglected by the police during the course of the investigations in this case. The applicant was charge-sheeted only to burnish the credentials of the police authorities.
8. The applicant is a poor person and has been abandoned by his friends and family alike. He does not have any effective pairokar to conduct his defence before the trial court. The applicant is a person of meagre means and needs to collect resources to engage a counsel of his choice and to draw an effective defence strategy.
9. Continued incarceration of the applicant will disable him from crafting an effective defence strategy and prevent him from gathering evidence in his support and tendering the same before the learned trial court to establish his innocence. Further detention of the applicant will be detrimental to his defence in the trial and inconsistent with the norms of fairness in criminal processual jurisprudence. In fact such detention of the applicant in these facts will be punitive in nature. [Ref: Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2586 of 2023) Asha v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13193 of 2025 and Vikas Kanjad v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19170 of 2025)]
10. Learned AGA contends that the applicant has some criminal cases apart from the instant case. Rejoining this issue, Shri Mayank Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a poor person and is in jail. He does not have an effective pairokar. Hence details of the status of the said criminal case could not be obtained and stated in the first instance in the bail application. However, on the basis of records available with the learned AGA and the upon instructions from the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely implicated in the aforesaid cases. The said cases do not depict commission of any heinous offence and have no bearing on the instant bail application.
11. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Amardeep @ R.P. be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).
The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties, or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.
(Ajay Bhanot,J.) April 9, 2026 Ashish Tripathi