Allahabad High Court
ANKIT PASIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ankit Pasi, who was arrested in connection with a case under Sections 310(2), 317(3) and 317(4) of the BNS. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the charge sheet had already been filed, and that co‑accused had already been granted bail, establishing parity. The State opposed bail but could not point to any substantive evidence linking the applicant to the offence or any risk of tampering, intimidation or trial delay. The Court found that the applicant’s role was vague, there was no concrete evidence against him, and he had been in custody for over eight months with no prospect of a speedy trial. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions, and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and lacks substantive evidence, is entitled to bail.
- Whether parity with co‑accused who have been granted bail warrants enlargement of bail for the applicant.
- Whether there is any risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay if bail is granted.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 310(2), 317(3), 317(4)
Subjects
- bail
- presumption of innocence
- parity
- co‑accused
- trial delay
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31595 of 2026
Ankit Pasi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Atul Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.
This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant
seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 219 of 2025, under
Sections 310(2), 317(3), 317 (4) of BNS, Police Station Puramufti,
District Prayagraj, during the pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned
counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR.
Charge sheet in this case has already been filed. Further custodial
interrogation of the applicant is no more required. It is next submitted that
co-accused of the applicant namely Abhishek Kumar @ Sonu and Babu
Pasi @ Omi Pasi have already enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench
as well as by this Court vide order dated 26.05.2026 and 9.7.2026 passed
in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16079 of 2026 (Abhishek Kumar
@ Sonu vs. State of U.P.) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
22226 of 2026, respectively. Criminal history of the applicant has been
explained in para 14 of the instant bail application. Applicant is in jail
since 22.12.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted
that if the applicant is released on bail on the ground of parity, he would
not misuse liberty of bail and is ready to co-operate in the trial.
BAIL No. 31595 of 2026
2
Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that there is no illegality in the bail rejection order, but could
not dispute the fact that similarly placed co-accused of the applicant have
already granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench as well as by this Court.
Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this
Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to
the applicant. The applicant was not named in the FIR. At this stage there
is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Co-
accused of the applicant have already granted bail by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for
more than eight months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial,
more so when 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, without
commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail. Bail Application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Ankit Pasi, involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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;
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
September 9, 2026
Brijesh
Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…