Bhupendra Singh Rajpoot vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 205 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340 B.N.S., Police Station Garautha, District Jhansi during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. During the course of investigation the name of co-accused Paras Nayak surfaced. The accused Paras Nayak, while in police custody, disclosed the name of the applicant. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transactions. The applicant has neither forged nor fabricated any document. The named co-accused persons, who have received compensation, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 19.03.2026 and 09.03.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS Nos. 2356 of 2026, Umesh Kumar and another v. State of U.P. and another, and 1485 of 2026, Smt. Ram Murti v. State of U.P. and another. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 18.03.2026 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State 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 after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. During the course of investigation the name of one Paras Nayak surfaced who, while in police custody, disclosed the name of the applicant. The named co-accused persons, who have received compensation, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost one and half month and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant- Bhupendra Singh Rajpoot, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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; and,

(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

SKT/-