Devki Nandan vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 554 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111(2)(b) BNS, Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The alleged tractor was not recovered from the possession of the applicant. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. It is next contended that the applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. Identically placed co-accused Teetu @ Himanshu has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40804 of 2025, Teetu @ Himanshu v. State of U.P. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-5 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 09.03.2026 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. 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 alleged tractor was not recovered from the possession of the applicant. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Teetu @ Himanshu has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost two months 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- Devki Nandan, 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

Manish Kr