Allahabad High Court

RAVINDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The court held that the applicant had made out a case for grant of bail and allowed the bail application.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ravindra Kumar, who was arrested in a case under Sections 140(1) and 3/5 of the B.N.S. for alleged abduction of a husband. The applicant claimed innocence, stating the alleged victim was a relative and that the abduction was a money dispute, and highlighted that one co-accused had not been charge‑sheeted and another co‑accused had already been released on bail. The State opposed bail, asserting sufficient evidence of the applicant’s involvement. After reviewing the submissions, the record, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the Court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and several conditions to ensure his presence at trial.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Sections 140(1) and 3/5 of the B.N.S. given the facts of the alleged abduction.
Whether the applicant’s period of incarceration and prior criminal history preclude the grant of bail.
Whether the evidence presented by the State is sufficient to deny bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 140(1), 269, 313, 3/5, 351, 84
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82
Indian Penal Code — s. 174-A, 209, 229-A

Subjects

bail
false implication
abduction
Criminal Procedure Code
Indian Penal Code
sureties
trial attendance
conditions of bail

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32453 of 2026

Ravindra Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

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

Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the
State of U.P.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 93 of 2026, under Sections 140(1), 3/5 of B.N.S.,
Police Station- Aata, District- Jalaun.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended by
learned counsel for the accused-applicant that the accused-applicant is
named in F.I.R. dated 02.06.2026 lodged by the Smt. Priyanka with the
allegation that the three named including the accused-applicant along with
3-4 anonymous persons had abducted her husband Rohit. It is alleged in
the F.I.R. that the informant's husband was returning home from visiting
market, when he was intercepted by the accused persons who abducted
him. Further contended that there is money transaction between the
parties, which led to the alleged abduction. Further contended that it was
not the abduction, but the abductee is real relative of the accused-
applicant. There was some unpaid money, which the abductee assured to
pay, which he was not paying as such, he was accompanied him to Delhi.
Further contended that out of the three persons, named in the F.I.R., the
complicity of one of the accused Gultu, has not been found during
investigation and he has not been charge sheeted. The charge sheet is
BAIL No. 32453 of 2026
2

submitted. The criminal history of three cases the applicant has been well
explained in paragraph no. 2 of the supplementary affidavit dated
19.09.2026. It is further submitted that co-accused Ajay has been enlarged
on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.09.2026
passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 28714 of 2026. Learned counsel
for applicant further submits that applicant has been languishing in jail since
09.06.2026 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty
of bail and will cooperate in trial.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
applicant and submitted that there is ample evidence against the applicant
regarding his involvement in the offence, therefore, he is not entitled to be
released on bail.

6. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the
record.

7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties, the nature of accusations, the evidence brought on record, the
period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, explanation of criminal
antecedents, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
this Court finds that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Ravindra Kumar who is involved in the
aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release
order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the
Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence,
BAIL No. 32453 of 2026
3

without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under
Section 229-A IPC/ 269 B.N.S.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order
to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./ 84 B.N.S.S.,
may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date
fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings
against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/ 209 B.N.S.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on
dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3)
recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./ 351 of B.N.S.S. If in the
opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without
sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default
as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

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

11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
September 28, 2026
A.P. Pandey

Digitally signed by :-
ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…