Muneeb Nishad vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. 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. 313 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(1) B.N.S., Police Station AIIMS, District Gorakhpur 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. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. The applicant is neither seller nor purchaser nor marginal witness of the alleged sale-deed executed on 20.09.2023. No amount has been credited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transaction. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Vikas Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2090 of 2026, Vikas Kumar v. State of U.P. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 20.03.2026 having no criminal history and if he is released 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 after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant surfaced during the course of investigation. The applicant is neither seller nor purchaser nor marginal witness of the alleged sale-deed executed on 20.09.2023. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Vikas Kumar has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than a 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- Muneeb Nishad, 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/-