Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

ROHIT @ KEERAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

The bail application is allowed.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of Rohit @ Keera, who was arrested in connection with Crime No. 173 of 2025 for alleged violations of Section 109(1) of the same Act and Sections 3, 35 and 27 of the Arms Act. The applicant claimed innocence, stating that no police officer was injured and that he, instead, suffered a leg injury, while a country‑made pistol and a small sum of money were recovered from him. The State opposed bail, highlighting the applicant’s seven prior similar offences. The Court examined the nature of the allegations, the lack of injury to police, the applicant’s criminal record, and the heavy pendency of cases, and, without expressing a view on the merits, found the case suitable for bail. Accordingly, the Court ordered the release of the applicant on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to strict conditions to prevent tampering or intimidation of witnesses. The order expressly limited its effect to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s independent assessment of the evidence.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case involving alleged offences under the Arms Act and Section 109(1) BNS.
  • Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history and the nature of the alleged offence warrant denial of bail.
  • Whether the absence of injury to police personnel and the applicant’s own injury affect the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
  • Arms Act
  • criminal history
  • trial pendency
  • conditions of bail

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14321 of 2026

Rohit @ Keera
                                                        .....Applicant(s)
                                 Versus

State of U.P.
                                                            .....Opposite
                                                                  Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                   :   Anil Kumar Bind
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)              :   G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Uma Shanker Mishra, learned AGA for the State-respondents
and perused the record.

2. 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.
173 of 2025, under Sections 109(1) BNS and Sections 3/35/27
Arms Act, registered at Police Station Kampil, District Farrukhabad,
during pendency of the trial.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this
case and he has been languishing in jail since 30.10.2025. It is
further submitted that the no police personnel is said to have
received injury of fire arm in the alleged incident and on the
contrary the applicant is said to have received injury on his leg. It is
further submitted that one country-made pistol and Rs. 330/- are
said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. I
t is further submitted that applicant is having criminal history which
has been duly explained in the memo of application. It is also
submitted that the applicant 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
                                                     BAIL No. 14321 of 2026
                              2


early conclusion of trial.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for
grant of bail to the applicant and it is submitted that the applicant is
having seven criminal history of similar nature.


5. No police personnel is said to have received injury of fire arm in
the alleged incident and on the contrary the applicant is said to
have received injury on his leg. One country-made pistol and Rs.
330/- are said to have been recovered from the possession of the
applicant. The applicant is having criminal history which has been
duly explained in the memo of application.

6. 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.

7. Let the applicant- Rohit @ Keera 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
                                                                                       BAIL No. 14321 of 2026
                                                                 3


                                    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.

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

                                    9. 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.



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




Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
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.