LEELAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9632 of 2026

Leela
                                                         .....Applicant(s)
                                 Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Bipin, Mahendra Kumar Prajapati,
                                Vibhav Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashok Kumar Pandey, G.A.

Court No. - 69
                 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Sri Bipin Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and Sri
Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and
perused the record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of
applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 40
of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2), 109, 130,
115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(2), 110 BNS and Section 7 of Criminal
Law Amendment Act, registered at Police Station Dadri, District
Gautam Budh Nagar, during pendency of the trial.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this
case and he has been languishing in jail since 25.1.2026. It is
further submitted that some of the co-accused, namely, Yogesh
Nagar, Sumit, Bhupendra, Manveer@Jitte, Sabu@Satendra and
Jitendra have already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court as well as by this Court. It is further submitted that role of
the applicant is not distinguishable from the role of above co-
accused. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he
will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out
                                                      BAIL No. 9632 of 2026
                              2


that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is
no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant and
learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
applicant and it is submitted that a person aged about 84 years has
received injury on his head among others in the alleged incident.
some of the co-accused, have already been granted bail by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court as well as by this Court.


5. As per allegations in the FIR, 34 named and 10 unknown
persons are said to have assaulted the first informant as a result of
which seven persons are said to have received injuries, out of
which 02 injured are said to have received grievous injuries on
their person, however, no specific role has been assigned to the
applicant and general role has been assigned to other co-accused
including the applicant.

6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence
reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits
of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail
application is ALLOWED.

7. Let the applicant- Leela involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-
with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) 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.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial
court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of
                                                                                         BAIL No. 9632 of 2026
                                                                 3


                                    charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of
                                    B.N.S.S.

                                    (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall
                                    not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the
                                    witnesses are present in the trial court.

                                    (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each
                                    date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

                                    8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
                                    ground for cancellation of bail.

                                    9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the
                                    purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way
                                    be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial
                                    court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent
                                    conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything
                                    said in this order.



                                                                                 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
                                    May 18, 2026
                                    Abhishek




Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad