Pawan Verma vs State Of U.P.
- Neutral2026:AHC:104772
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an accused person charged under Sections 126(2), 310(2), and 317(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has made out a case for bail having regard to the nature of the offence, the material and evidence on record, the complicity of the accused, and the severity of punishment prescribed, bail may be granted on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court. Where bail has been granted subject to conditions, the court below retains the liberty to cancel such bail upon breach of any of those conditions.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Heard Shri Ravindra Mani Pal, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Puneet Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Pawan Verma, with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 356 of 2025, under Sections 126 (2), 310 (2), 317 (3) BNS, Police Station-Parsurampur, District-Basti, during pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case and is languishing in jail since 13.01.2026. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that first information report was lodged against five unknown persons with the allegation that on the date of incident his brother namely Chandrika Prasad Jaiswal along with his friend namely Pawan Verma were going to Ayodhya. In the way near Bichhnaiya Taal, five unknown persons stopped them and looted the Motor cycle, Rs. 85,00/ cash, and three mobile phones. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was arrested from his house while he was sleeping. The recovery shown from the possession of the applicant is planted one as there is no independent witness to the said recovery. Learned counsel for the applicant after arguing at some length submits that in the present case charge sheet has been filed on 27.01.2026, cognizance has been taken on 18.02.2026 and there is no need of further custodial interrogation of the applicant. Criminal antecedents of five cases has been properly explained and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Pawan Sharma, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.
4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.
In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
May 6, 2026
Deepak/
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free