Arjun Thakur vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. Perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.56 of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 111(6), 317(2), 338, 340(2) B.N.S. and 66D I.T. Act, Police Station- Bilhaur, District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was nominated in the first information report pursuant to the information furnished by co-accused Raj alias Krishna, Sohail and Mohd. Imran alias Shibu. The said statements, insofar as they implicate the applicant, are unreliable. False recovery of two mobile phones, two SIMs, two pass-books, an Aadhar card and Rs.1100/- has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered items do not connect the applicant with any offence. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transaction. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of other co-accused. The applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. The applicant is in jail since 02.03.2026 having no criminal history and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was nominated in the first information report pursuant to the information furnished by co-accused Raj alias Krishna, Sohail and Mohd. Imran alias Shibu. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered items do not connect the applicant with any offence. Further, the applicant has no criminal history and remained confined for more than two months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant Arjun Thakur, involved in the aforesaid 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 the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

May 7, 2026

Manish Kr