Allahabad High Court
KAMLESH BHARTIYAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The bail application is allowed and the applicant is released on bail subject to the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Kamlesh Bhartiya, who was arrested in Crime No. 412 of 2026 under Sections 109(1) and 115(2) of the B.N.S. The applicant claimed false implication and pointed out that a similarly situated co‑accused, Neeraj Bhartiya, had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of the same court. The State opposed bail but could not dispute the earlier bail order. After reviewing the facts, the court noted the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents and his prolonged pre‑trial detention since 20‑08‑2026, and held that the earlier bail order had not been stayed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, directing the applicant to furnish a personal bond, two sureties and to comply with several conditions regarding court attendance and non‑adjournment. The order also warned that breach of any condition would be grounds for cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether Kamlesh Bhartiya is entitled to bail under Sections 109(1) and 115(2) of the B.N.S. in view of a similarly situated co‑accused having been granted bail.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedent and prolonged pre‑trial detention justify the grant of bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed on bail are lawful and sufficient to ensure the applicant’s presence at trial.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 109(1), 115(2), 209, 84
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 313, 82
- Indian Penal Code — s. 174-A, 209, 229-A, 269
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- co‑accused parity
- pre‑trial detention
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34524 of 2026
Kamlesh Bhartiya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Nirankari, Ranjana
Bhartiya, Ranjeet Sonker
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the
State of State of U.P.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No.412 of 2026, under Sectionss 109(1), 115(2) BNS,
Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the alleged
offence. Learned counsel for the applicant next contends that the similarly
situated co-accused, namely, Neeraj Bhartiya has been granted bail by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2026, passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.33630 of 2026. He further contends that the
applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 20.08.2026.
4. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposed the prayer for grant of bail,
however, he could not dispute the fact that similarly situated co-accused,
namely, Neeraj Bhartiya has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material brought on the record.
6. In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, especially taking
into account the fact that the similarly situated co-accused, namely, Neeraj
BAIL No. 34524 of 2026
2
Bhartiya has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the
same order has not been set aside or stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 20.08.2026, I deem it
appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail.
7. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Kamlesh Bhartiya, 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,
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. 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.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
BAIL No. 34524 of 2026
3
10. 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
Nitendra
Digitally signed by :-
NITENDRA TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…