Allahabad High Court

PAPPU CHAUBEY @ ANEESH CHAUBEYversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: JAI PRAKASH TIWARI

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pappu Chaubey (Aneesh Chaubey) in a case under IPC sections 310(2), 352 and 61(2) BNS. The applicant claimed innocence, lack of incriminating material, and cited that co‑accused had already been granted bail in similar cases. The State opposed bail but did not challenge the earlier bail orders for co‑accused. The Court observed that the role assigned to the applicant was vague, there was no substantive evidence linking him to the offence, and he had been in custody for over seven months with no prospect of a speedy trial. Finding no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, the Court granted bail on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the charges under IPC sections 310(2), 352 and 61(2) BNS.
Whether the lack of substantive evidence and the prolonged pre‑trial detention justify granting bail.
Whether parity with co‑accused who have been released on bail mandates the same relief for the applicant.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 310(2), 352, 61(2)

Subjects

bail
pre‑trial detention
parity
evidence tampering
Indian Penal Code
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40437 of 2025

Pappu Chaubey @ Aneesh Chaubey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kumar Shukla, Ashok Kumar
Maurya, Devottam Pandey, Lok Nath
Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-
opposite party.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 348 of 2025, under Sections 310(2), 352, 61(2)
BNS, Police Station Bairia, District Ballia, during pendency of the trial.

Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the subject case. Learned counsel
submits that applicant has not committed the alleged crime as well as
nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession. There is no
independent witness of the alleged incident. Except this case, the
applicant has also involved in three other cases, in which, he has already
granted bail by the court concerned. The applicant is in jail since
23.09.2025. Further submission is that similarly placed co-accused of the
applicant have already granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order(s) dated 13.11.2025, 05.01.2026, 1.12.2025, 18.11.2025 and
17.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36630 of 2025
(Manish Verma vs. State of U.P.), No. 45462 of 2025 (Chepur @ Abhi
Rathaur Abhinash @ Abhiram @ Nitish vs. State of U.P.), No. 41358 of
2025 (Golu Paswan vs. State of U.P.), No. 39259 of 2025 (Sonu Kumar
Paswan vs. State of U.P.) and No. 40399 of 2025 (Dipesh Yadav alias
Deepu Yadav vs. State of U.P.), respectively. Learned counsel for the
BAIL No. 40437 of 2025
2

applicant has further submitted that if the applicant is also released on bail
on parity, he would not misuse liberty of bail and is ready to co-operate in
the trial.

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 does not
dispute the fact that similarly placed co-accused of the applicant have
already granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of 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. 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 seven 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 applicants, 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 applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Bail
Application is allowed.

Let the applicants-Pappu Chaubey @ Aneesh Chaubey, 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.)
May 5, 2026
Brijesh

Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…