Naresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, granted bail to Naresh Kumar in Case Crime No. 272 of 2025, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Raebareli, involving allegations under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The applicant submitted that he was not named in the FIR and had been implicated on the statement of co-accused Sanjay Thakur. The applicant argued that the co-accused had referred to Naresh Rana whereas he was Naresh Singh, and that the disputed mobile phone and SIM were not his. He also claimed parity with Sanjay Thakur, who had secured bail on 6 August 2025. Counsel further submitted that the allegations were covered by GST legislation and that appropriate proceedings, if any, lay under that statute. The State opposed the application.
Without deciding the merits, Justice Zafeer Ahmad considered the applicant’s absence from the FIR, the reliance on co-accused statements, the disputed mobile-phone identification and the plea of parity. The Court allowed bail on execution of a personal bond and two sureties, subject to seven conditions including non-interference with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses, cooperation with trial proceedings and compliance with attendance requirements.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.272 of 2025, under Sections 319 (2), 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2)/3(5) B.N.S (Corresponding Sections 419, 420, 467,468, 471,34 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and his name has surfaced only on the basis of the statement of co-accused Sanjay Thakur. It is further submitted that the co-accused has named one Naresh Rana, whereas the present applicant is Naresh Singh. He further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no concern whatsoever with the alleged firm. He further submitted that the mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 355750323819160, relied upon by the prosecution, does not belong to the applicant and the SIM used therein was in the name of another person. Learned counsel further submits that except for the aforesaid circumstances, there is no independent evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the applicant was arrested from Muzaffarnagar and not from the place shown by the prosecution. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Sanjay Thakur has already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7283 of 2025 and the applicant claims parity. It is lastly submitted that even according to the prosecution allegations, the matter is covered by the provisions of the GST Act and appropriate proceedings, if any, lie under GST Act.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, considering the fact that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., his implication is primarily based upon the statement of co-accused persons, the disputed mobile phone/IMEI is stated not to belong to the applicant,claims parity, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
i. Let the applicant-Naresh Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
ii. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
iii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
iv. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
v. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
vi. The applicant shall also file an undertaking in terms of requirement of Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that he will not indulge in any case or misuse the liberty of bail.
vii. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.
viii. In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS.
