Allahabad High Court
ANEESH MARATHAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The court held that bail is appropriate and granted it to the applicant.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Aneesh Maratha in a case involving alleged theft of mobile phones and charges under IPC sections 310(2), 317(3), 112(2) and 317(5). The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, the IMEI number of the alleged stolen phone was omitted, and that he was falsely implicated based on an informer's information, with no independent witness to the recovery. The prosecution did not contest these factual contentions. After reviewing the record and the nature of the allegations, the court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, found the case suitable for bail. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard bail conditions, and clarified that the order does not affect the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious IPC offences (310, 317, 112) when the accused claims non-mention in the FIR and lack of substantive evidence.
- Whether the absence of the IMEI number and lack of independent witnesses justify bail.
- Whether the grant of bail to co-accused influences the bail decision for the applicant.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 112(2), 310(2), 317(3), 317(5)
Subjects
- bail
- IPC sections 310, 317, 112
- false implication
- mobile phone theft
- FIR omission
- sureties
- trial pending
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32999 of 2026
Aneesh Maratha
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Uma Dutt Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused
the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge
the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 318 of 2025, under Sections
310(2), 317(3), 112(2), 317(5) B.N.S. Police Station Hariparvat, District
Agra, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not
named in the first information report. The IMEI number of the mobile
phone, which was allegedly snatched, was neither disclosed neither in the
first information report nor in the statement of the informant. On the basis
of the information furnished by an informer, the applicant was arrested
alongwith four accused and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. False recovery of three phones has been shown from the applicant.
There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. It is next
contended that the co-accused - Shyam Maratha, Kishan and Ganesh Rao
have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 03.11.2026,
10.11.2026 and 31.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
Nos.38106 of 2025, 39048 of 2025 and 38005 of 2025. The applicant is in
jail since 10.09.2025, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he has not disputed
the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused-
applicant.
BAIL No. 32999 of 2026
2
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the
record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion
on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
6. Let applicant -Aneesh Maratha be released on bail in the aforesaid
case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable
sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned
subject to following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of
justice:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
7. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.
8. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
September 30, 2026
S.K.
Digitally signed by :-
SWEETY KANOJIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…