SUBHASH BABU @ TITUversusSTATE OF U.P.

   HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9463 of 2026

Subhash Babu @ Titu
                                                   .....Applicant(s)
                             Versus
State of U.P.
                                                      .....Opposite
                                                            Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Akhil Kumar Shukla, Brijesh
                                Kumar Tiwari, Lalit Kumar
                                Tripathi,  Shaily   Shukla,
                                Sharad Chand Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 55
           HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have
been received and has no objection in case the bail application is
heard on merits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is private person and it is alleged that a sum of
Rs.10,000/- was demanded by co-accused Raj Kumar and the
aforesaid amount is alleged to have been recovered from
applicant by the trap team. It is submitted that maximum
punishment provided is seven years and the trial is by Magistrate.
Charge sheet has been submitted. The criminal history of
applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 13 of the affidavit.
Applicant is languishing in jail since 10.10.2025 and in case he is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will
cooperate in the trial.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but
does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

5. Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal
antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has
                                                     BAIL No. 9463 of 2026
                           2


been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering
of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases.
In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the
Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a
history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a
history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant
factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime
in respect of which he has been booked."

6. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and
another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an
accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

7. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned,
it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or
otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might
intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also
not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade
the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled
to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal
history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal
antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the
Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on
the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

8. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has
been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the
touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle
has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar
Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022
(10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional
circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the
applicant.

9. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned
AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence
or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere
                                                       BAIL No. 9463 of 2026
                            3


presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused
will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure
the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars
or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice
or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the
shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like
have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

11. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or
circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in
larger interests of the public or State.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the
applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is
allowed.

13. Let the applicant Subhash Babu @ Titu involved in Case
Crime No.08 of 2025, under Section 7/12 Prevention of
Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption, District Aligarh
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 following conditions:-

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness.

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date
fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant
shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer
as and when required.

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission
of which he is suspected.
                                                                                             BAIL No. 9463 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                        v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
                                        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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

                                        vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous
                                        permission of the Court.

                                        vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the
                                        applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential
                                        address in writing.

                                        14. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the
                                        prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation
                                        application before this Court.

                                        15. Certified copy of this order shall be given to learned counsel
                                        for applicant today on payment of usual charges.

                                        September 9, 2026
                                        D. Tamang
                                                                                (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA TAMANG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad