Allahabad High Court
ARJUN KUMAR @ ARJUN RAJBHARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the accused, subject to strict conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Arjun Kumar, who is charged under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly receiving Rs 13 lakh in exchange for securing a job for his son. The applicant had transferred Rs 3 lakh and offered a demand draft for the remaining Rs 10 lakh, which the first informant accepted, and he argued that he has no criminal antecedents and poses no flight or tampering risk. The State’s Additional Government Advocate opposed bail, but the court relied on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Deepak Kumar Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024 INSC 117) regarding unlawful job‑securing contracts. Weighing the seriousness of the offences, the possibility of witness intimidation, and the applicant’s cooperation, the court granted bail subject to standard conditions. The order directs the applicant to execute a personal bond and provide two sureties, and to comply with conditions prohibiting evidence tampering, criminal activity, and witness intimidation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for offences punishable under Sections 318, 338, 336, 351 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the applicant’s willingness to return the disputed amount and the first informant’s acceptance of a demand draft mitigate the risk of flight or tampering.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in Deepak Kumar Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh is applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- corruption
- job procurement scam
- witness tampering
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6814 of 2026
Arjun Kumar @ Arjun Rajbhar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Divyanshu Pathak, Vartika Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Singh Yadav, G.A.
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Shri Divyanshu Pathak,, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Ramendra Pal Singh, learned AGA for the State, Shri Deepak Singh Yadav,
learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Arjun Kumar
@ Arjun Rajbhar, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 474 of
2025, under Sections 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 351 (3), 352 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Sidhari, District Azamgarh, during the
pendency of the trial before the Court below.
This Court vide order dated 17.3.2026 had passed following orders:-
"1. Counsel for the applicant Sri Kuldeep Tripathi, Advocate, holding
brief of Sri Divyanshu Pathak, Sri Deepak Singh Yadav, learned counsel
for the first informant and Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
2. Counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation in the FIR is that
the applicant has received Rs.13 lacs in his account from the account of
the first informant with the assurance that his son will get a job. It is
further submitted that the applicant is ready to transfer the aforesaid
amount in the account of the first informant. It is also submitted that the
applicant has already transferred Rs.3 lacs in the account of the first
informant through his wife and remaining amount i.e. Rs.10 lacs will also
BAIL No. 6814 of 2026
2
be transferred in the account of the first informant, if the applicant is
permitted to transfer the aforesaid amount from his account, which has
been frozen by the Police.
3. Considering the aforesaid request, the Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch
Muhammadabad, District Azamgarh is directed to permit the applicant to
transfer the amount of Rs.10 lacs in the account of the first informant, if
the applicant makes such request.
4. List this case in the week commencing 06.04.2026 as fresh."
Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 17.3.2026, applicant has got prepared a
demand draft bearing No. 298751 dated 16.5.2026 of Uttar Pradesh Gramin
Bank, Jahanganj to the tune of Rs.10 lacs and handed over the same to Shri
Deepak Singh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the first informant. A
photostat copy of demand draft, passed on by learned counsel for the
applicant, is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is languishing in jail
since 19.12.2025. Applicant has no criminal antecedent and there is no
likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in
case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to
Para 13 of decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Deepak Kumar
Shrivas and another versus State of Chattisgarh and others, reported in
2024 INSC 117, which is as under:-
"13. A reading of the entire material on record clearly reflects that it was
totally an unlawful contract between the parties where money was being
paid for securing a job in the government department(s) or private sector.
Apparently, a suit for recovery could not have been filed for the said
purpose and even if it could be filed, it could be difficult to establish the
same where the payment was entirely in cash. Therefore, the respondent
no.6 found out a better medium to recover the said amount by building
pressure on the appellant and his brother by lodging the FIR. Under the
threat of criminal prosecution, may be the appellant would have tried to
sort out and settle the dispute by shelving out some money."
BAIL No. 6814 of 2026
3
Shri Deepak Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant has
accepted the said demand draft on behalf of the first informant today in the
Court and he has no objection in case applicant be released on bail.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering all above facts and circumstances, aforesaid law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the nature of accusations, severity of the
punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence,
reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie, but
without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the accused-applicant, Arjun Kumar @ Arjun Rajbhar, involved in
above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a
personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and
co-operate in the trial.
4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the
trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by
the court concerned.
In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below
will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
May 18, 2026
Ravi Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…