Allahabad High Court
RAJ BAHADURversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the applicant has made out a case for bail and granted it.
Summary
The applicant, Raj Bahadur, a laborer, was arrested on 4 August 2026 in connection with a case (Crime No.215 of 2026) involving alleged offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Trademark Act, 1999 and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He pleaded innocence, claiming false implication, and asserted no prior criminal record. Counsel for the State opposed bail, but the court, after reviewing the material and hearing arguments, found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for bail. The court ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties, imposing conditions not to tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, and to appear as required. The bail order was granted without prejudice to the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial for offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 103/104 of the Trademark Act, 1999 and Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Legislation cited
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 3, 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
- Trademark Act, 1999 — s. 103, 104
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- Trademark Act
- Essential Commodities Act
- prima facie
- court order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31996 of 2026
Raj Bahadur
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Birendra Singh, Swati Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.116 out of 318)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun
Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.215 of 2026, under Sections
318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS, Section 103/104 Trademark Act, 1999 and
Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station Charva,
District Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
applicant was laborer only and has nothing to do with the said offence. The
allegations levelled against the applicant are per se false. The applicant has
no criminal history and is in jail since 4.8.2026. He undertakes to cooperate
with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of
BAIL No. 31996 of 2026
2
the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application
is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Raj Bahadur, be released on bail in the aforementioned
case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction
of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions
that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall
appear before the trial court as required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 9, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…