Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

ARUN KUMAR GAUTAM @ ARUN MAHADEVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

The court allowed the bail application, granting bail to the applicant with specified conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Arun Kumar Gautam, who alleged false implication in a case involving multiple accused. The applicant was not named in the FIR but his name appeared in a co-accused's confessional statement, and he had been in custody since 31 March 2026. The counsel highlighted that several co-accused had already been granted bail and that the applicant had no prior criminal record, as detailed in a supplementary affidavit. The State opposed the bail, but the court, after reviewing the facts and the lack of specific allegations against the applicant, found the case suitable for bail. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to an accused not named in the FIR but mentioned in a co-accused's confessional statement under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • false implication
  • confessional statement
  • criminal procedure
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
  • conditions of bail

Judgment

                HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14271 of 2026

Arun Kumar Gautam @ Arun Mahadev
                                                                         .....Applicant(s)
                                         Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                    .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                                :     Mrityunjay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                           :     G.A.

Court No. - 69
                    HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on
record.

2. Heard Sri Mrityunjay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Gautam,
learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

3. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on
bail in Case Crime No. 230 of 2026 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 125, 109(1),
115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, registered at Police
Station Banna Devi, District Aligarh during pendency of the trial.

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 31.3.2026. It is
further submitted that applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced in
the confessional statement of co-accused Mohit Sharma. It is further submitted that as
per the FIR, 12 named and 12 unknown persons are said to have indulged in fighting
amongst each other, however, no specific role has been assigned to any of them and
several co-accused persons including co-accused Yash Goyal have been granted bail
by this Court vide order dated 05.5.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.
15001 of 2026. It is also submitted that criminal history of the applicant has been
explained in the supplementary affidavit and he undertakes that he will not misuse the
liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of
cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
applicant.

6. As per the allegations in the FIR, 12 named and 12 unknown persons have been
made accused, however, no specific role has been assigned to any of them. Applicant
is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-
                                                                                                     BAIL No. 14271 of 2026
                                                                         2

                                    accused Mohit Sharma. Several co-accused persons including co-accused Yash Goyal
                                    have been granted bail by this Court. Criminal history of applicant has been explained
                                    in the supplementary affidavit filed today and he is languishing in jail since 31.3.2026.

                                    7. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record
                                    and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for
                                    bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.

                                    8. Let the applicant Arun Kumar Gautam @ Arun Mahadev involved in the
                                    aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.
                                    50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
                                    concerned with the following conditions :-

                                    (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or
                                    promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
                                    disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

                                    (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

                                    (iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates
                                    fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement
                                    under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

                                    (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any
                                    adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial
                                    court.

                                    (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either
                                    personally or through his counsel.

                                    9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
                                    cancellation of bail.

                                    10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
                                    determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression
                                    on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its
                                    independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in
                                    this order.

                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Madhurima
                                                                                            (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.